# Examples — Meeting Summary & Action Item Agent

## Clear meeting → faithful summary, decisions, owned action items

A well-run meeting with explicit agreements and assignments. The agent captures them cleanly with evidence.

**Input**

```
Transcript excerpt: 'Maria: Let's ship the beta on the 15th. — Team: agreed. — Maria: Raj, can you finalize the release notes by the 12th? — Raj: yes, I'll have them done.'
```

**Output**

```
{
  "summary": "The team agreed to ship the beta on the 15th and assigned release-note finalization to Raj by the 12th.",
  "decisions": [ { "decision": "Ship the beta on the 15th", "evidence": "Maria proposed the 15th; team responded 'agreed'" } ],
  "action_items": [ { "task": "Finalize the release notes", "owner": "Raj", "due": "the 12th", "firmness": "firm", "needs_confirmation": false } ],
  "open_questions": [],
  "attribution_flags": [],
  "confidence": "high",
  "caveats": []
}
```

**Note:** Everything traces to the transcript: a clearly agreed decision (with evidence) and a firm, explicitly-owned action item with a due date. This is the clean case — the value is that the structure is faithful, not embellished.

## Ambiguous ownership → action item left unassigned and flagged

An action is clearly needed but nobody explicitly took it. The agent refuses to guess an owner.

**Input**

```
Transcript: 'Someone needs to follow up with the vendor about the pricing before next week.' (No one explicitly volunteers.)
```

**Output**

```
{
  "summary": "The team identified that a vendor pricing follow-up is needed before next week, but no owner was assigned during the meeting.",
  "decisions": [],
  "action_items": [ { "task": "Follow up with the vendor about pricing", "owner": "unassigned", "due": "before next week", "firmness": "firm", "needs_confirmation": true } ],
  "open_questions": ["Who will own the vendor pricing follow-up?"],
  "attribution_flags": ["Action item 'vendor pricing follow-up' has no clear owner — confirm before distributing"],
  "confidence": "high",
  "caveats": []
}
```

**Note:** The action is real, but ownership was never assigned — so the agent captures the task with owner='unassigned', flags it for confirmation, and adds an open question. Guessing a name here would create a false record and a dropped ball. Honest 'unassigned' beats a confident wrong owner.

## Discussed but not agreed → kept OUT of decisions

A topic was debated without resolution. The agent resists logging it as a decision and files it under open questions.

**Input**

```
Transcript: 'Alex: We should probably switch to the new vendor. — Sam: I'm not sure, the migration cost worries me. — Maria: Let's table it and revisit next week.' 
```

**Output**

```
{
  "summary": "The team discussed switching to a new vendor but did not decide; migration cost was raised as a concern and the topic was tabled to next week.",
  "decisions": [],
  "action_items": [ { "task": "Revisit the vendor-switch decision", "owner": "unassigned", "due": "next week", "firmness": "firm", "needs_confirmation": true } ],
  "open_questions": ["Should we switch to the new vendor? (migration cost unresolved — tabled to next week)"],
  "attribution_flags": [],
  "confidence": "high",
  "caveats": []
}
```

**Note:** The defining faithfulness case: it's tempting to record 'decided to switch vendors,' but the transcript shows the opposite — it was debated and explicitly tabled. The agent logs zero decisions, puts the question under open questions, and only captures the real action (revisit next week). It reports what happened, not a tidier version of it.
