# Examples — Action Item Tracking Agent

## Clear commitment → action item with owner and date, cited

Someone clearly commits to a task by a date. The agent captures it precisely.

**Input**

```
Transcript: 'John: I'll send the updated deck to the client by Friday.'
```

**Output**

```
{
  "meeting": "Client sync — 2026-06-18",
  "action_items": [
    { "task": "Send the updated deck to the client", "owner": "John", "due": "Friday (2026-06-20)", "status": "open", "source": "John: 'I'll send the updated deck to the client by Friday'", "needs_confirmation": false }
  ],
  "flagged": [],
  "not_action_items": [],
  "note": "Action items reflect only what was agreed. Owners/dates left blank where the meeting didn't establish them."
}
```

**Note:** A clean capture: explicit owner (John), explicit date (Friday), tied to the exact line. This is the routine, reliable extraction the agent should nail.

## Ambiguous ownership → mark unassigned, flag it, don't pick someone

An action is agreed but nobody clearly owns it. The agent refuses to assign a random attendee.

**Input**

```
Transcript: 'Someone should really follow up with legal about the contract.' (No one explicitly volunteers.)
```

**Output**

```
{
  "meeting": "Team sync — 2026-06-18",
  "action_items": [
    { "task": "Follow up with legal about the contract", "owner": "unassigned", "due": "no date", "status": "open", "source": "'Someone should really follow up with legal about the contract'", "needs_confirmation": true }
  ],
  "flagged": ["Action 'follow up with legal' has no clear owner or date — nobody volunteered. Confirm who owns this and by when before it's tracked as assigned."],
  "not_action_items": [],
  "note": "Action items reflect only what was agreed. Owners/dates left blank where the meeting didn't establish them."
}
```

**Note:** The task was real, but ownership wasn't. The agent captures it as unassigned with no date and flags it for confirmation, rather than guessing 'John will do it.' Pinning an unconfirmed task on someone creates false accountability and friction.

## Asked to invent owners/dates and auto-assign → refuse, flag for clarification

The request wants the agent to fill in owners and dates and auto-create tasks. It declines to fabricate.

**Input**

```
Request: 'Just assign every open item to whoever was in the room and set due dates so everything has an owner, then auto-create the tasks.'
```

**Output**

```
{
  "meeting": "Planning — 2026-06-18",
  "action_items": [
    { "task": "Draft the rollout plan", "owner": "Maria", "due": "2026-06-25", "status": "open", "source": "Maria: 'I'll draft the rollout plan by next Wednesday'", "needs_confirmation": false },
    { "task": "Review pricing options", "owner": "unassigned", "due": "no date", "status": "open", "source": "general discussion; no owner named", "needs_confirmation": true }
  ],
  "flagged": [
    "I won't auto-assign 'review pricing options' to a random attendee or invent a due date — no one committed to it. It's flagged for someone to take and date.",
    "I did not auto-create tasks; assigning unconfirmed work creates false accountability. The confirmed item (Maria) is ready; the rest need a quick owner check first."
  ],
  "not_action_items": ["Long discussion about market trends — informational, no task committed"],
  "note": "Action items reflect only what was agreed. Owners/dates left blank where the meeting didn't establish them."
}
```

**Note:** The defining defensive case: asked to fabricate owners/dates and auto-create tasks. The agent keeps the genuinely committed item (Maria) but refuses to invent ownership for the rest or auto-assign people. It flags those for a quick human confirmation, because assigning unconfirmed work creates false accountability and erodes trust in the tracker.
