follow-through 0.2.0__tar.gz

follow_through-0.2.0/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2026 Waiga Arya
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

follow_through-0.2.0/PKG-INFO

@@ -0,0 +1,580 @@
+Metadata-Version: 2.4
+Name: follow-through
+Version: 0.2.0
+Summary: Find the commitments in a transcript and track them until they are closed. Runs entirely on your machine.
+Author: Waiga Arya
+License: MIT License
+        
+        Copyright (c) 2026 Waiga Arya
+        
+        Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+        of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+        in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+        to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+        copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+        furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+        
+        The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+        copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+        
+        THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+        IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+        FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+        AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+        LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+        OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+        SOFTWARE.
+        
+Project-URL: Homepage, https://github.com/Waiga/follow-through
+Project-URL: Issues, https://github.com/Waiga/follow-through/issues
+Keywords: transcripts,meetings,commitments,accountability,cli,offline
+Classifier: Development Status :: 3 - Alpha
+Classifier: Environment :: Console
+Classifier: Intended Audience :: End Users/Desktop
+Classifier: License :: OSI Approved :: MIT License
+Classifier: Programming Language :: Python :: 3.11
+Classifier: Programming Language :: Python :: 3.12
+Classifier: Programming Language :: Python :: 3.13
+Classifier: Topic :: Office/Business
+Classifier: Topic :: Text Processing :: Linguistic
+Requires-Python: >=3.11
+Description-Content-Type: text/markdown
+License-File: LICENSE
+Dynamic: license-file
+
+# Follow Through
+
+People commit to things out loud. In a meeting, on a call, in a voice note. The
+commitment is real; the record is not. It sits inside a transcript nobody reads
+again, and a week later nobody can say what was promised, by whom, or whether it
+happened.
+
+Transcription is already solved. Almost every meeting tool emits text. What is
+missing is the step after: turning that text into a list of obligations you can
+actually close.
+
+Follow Through is a command-line tool that reads a transcript, finds the
+statements that commit someone to a future action, and tracks each one until you
+say it is done.
+
+It reads English and Hinglish — Hindi spoken in Roman script, which is what
+transcription tools return for most of India. That is not a bonus feature.
+English-only rules do not degrade gracefully on a Hindi conversation: they
+return nothing at all, while reporting nothing wrong.
+
+The Hinglish rules were added after the English-only version missed the
+commitments in one real Hindi-English meeting transcript, where every promise
+looked like "main hi follow up dalta hu". That is a single private transcript,
+scored by the person who wrote the rules. It explains why the module exists; it
+is not evidence that it works. The Hinglish rules have never been measured
+against any public corpus, no such corpus is known to me, and the Hinglish
+example in this repository is invented.
+
+It runs entirely on your machine. No account, no API key, no network call. Your
+transcripts are never uploaded anywhere.
+
+That is enforced, not just promised. `tests/test_offline.py` reads this package's
+own source on every run and fails if any module imports something that can reach
+the network, names one of the `os` functions that starts another program —
+however it is spelled, including behind an alias, an aliased import, or a string
+passed to `getattr` — or reaches for `__import__`, `eval` or `exec`. Each
+detector has its own test proving it can fail, and one test smuggles a working
+exfiltration path in to confirm it is caught.
+
+Being precise about what that is: it is a static read of this package's source, on
+a package that declares no dependencies. It is a guard against drift, not a
+sandbox. It does not run the code and it cannot vouch for your Python
+installation. What it does is make the offline promise expensive to break by
+accident and impossible to break in the obvious ways without a test turning red.
+
+## Install
+
+Follow Through needs Python 3.11 or newer and has no dependencies.
+
+```bash
+python3 -m pip install --no-deps .
+```
+
+## Use it
+
+Start with a transcript. Any plain text file works — exported meeting notes, a
+transcription, or something you typed yourself.
+
+```bash
+follow-through extract examples/weekly-sync.txt
+```
+
+```
+8a6295803ccc  Sam                   by Friday             I'll send the signed lease to finance by Friday.
+35a117fe08a0  owner not stated      no stated deadline    Can you also share the insurance certificate?
+ab66f295b196  Jordan                by October 3          Jordan will pull the carrier rates by October 3.
+1f0e51f8120a  Jordan                in 3 days             I'll have a first cut ready in 3 days.
+4312edaecc56  owner not stated      no stated deadline    We'll need to decide on the second shift before the move.
+4095a62ef115  Jordan                tonight               Let me draft the shift plan tonight.
+694cf1f34f39  owner not stated      no stated deadline    Please confirm the headcount with HR.
+37f8c8a83e0d  Alex                  today                 I'll update the risk register today.
+0bc8f26c2cae  O'Brien               next week             O'Brien will countersign the lease next week.
+```
+
+Five other lines in that transcript were left out on purpose: two hypotheticals,
+one thing already done, one "maybe", and a "let me know". Each of them contains a
+phrase the tool otherwise treats as a commitment.
+
+`extract` records nothing. When the list looks right, keep it:
+
+```bash
+follow-through track examples/weekly-sync.txt
+```
+
+That writes a ledger to `.follow-through/ledger.json`. Run it again over the same
+file after it has grown and only the new commitments are added — nothing is
+duplicated, and nothing you have already closed comes back.
+
+A commitment is identified by its wording, its owner, and the file it came from.
+The file matters: people promise the same thing, in the same words, every week.
+If last week's transcript and this week's were treated as one, the second promise
+would silently match the first one you closed and disappear.
+
+The file is recorded as the path you gave, shortened, not as an absolute path —
+otherwise the same transcript would produce different ids on different machines.
+One consequence worth knowing: if two directories each hold a `standup.txt` and
+both are tracked from inside themselves into one shared ledger, both record
+`standup.txt` and merge. Run `track` from a common parent and the paths differ,
+so they stay separate.
+
+See what is still open, close something, and write a report:
+
+```bash
+follow-through list
+follow-through close 8a62 --note "lease countersigned and filed"
+follow-through report
+```
+
+`report` writes Markdown and HTML to `reports/`. Open commitments are grouped by
+person, with the unattributed ones in their own visible group — those are the
+ones that actually go missing.
+
+A worked example of the finished report is in
+[`examples/expected-report.md`](examples/expected-report.md).
+
+## Hinglish
+
+The same command, on [`examples/weekly-sync-hinglish.txt`](examples/weekly-sync-hinglish.txt):
+
+```
+30c32ccddb01  Neha                  kal tak               Main signed copy finance ko kal tak bhej dungi.
+```
+
+Hindi puts two things in different places from English, and both matter.
+
+**Who is committing is in the verb ending, not in a pronoun.** `-unga` / `-ungi`
+is "I will", `-enge` is "we will", `-ega` / `-egi` after a name is "she will" or
+"he will" — which is how work actually gets handed to someone in a Hindi meeting.
+The rules match the ending, so verbs nobody thought to list are still caught.
+
+**When it is due is at the end of the phrase.** `kal` is "tomorrow"; `kal tak` is
+"by tomorrow". Only the second one sets a deadline, and only the second one
+overrules the filler list.
+
+**The Hindi rules only run on Hindi sentences.** Roman script hides the
+difference between a Hindi verb and an ordinary English word: `fungi` ends like
+`karungi`, `Ortega` like `karega`, `karo` is a syrup and `bolo` is a tie. Applied
+to everything, these rules invented commitments in English sentences and invented
+people to own them.
+
+So a sentence has to look like Hindi first. Either it contains a Hindi function
+word — `hai`, `ko`, `kar`, `nahi` — or it contains an unmistakably Hindi verb: a
+**lowercase** word ending `-ega`, `-egi`, `-enge`, `-unga`, `-ungi`. The
+lowercase part is what does the work. Hindi verbs are not capitalised in the
+middle of a sentence, and the English words that share those endings are proper
+nouns: Ortega, Vega, Omega, Noriega. That one distinction separates
+"Amazon listing Farhan update karega" from "Maria Ortega raised the issue"
+without needing a dictionary of either language.
+
+Transliteration is not standardised — people write `hu` and `hoon`, `kar dunga`
+and `kardunga`. The common spellings are covered and the list will always be
+incomplete. Adding to it is the single most useful contribution anyone can make,
+and the rules are plain data in
+[`follow_through/hinglish.py`](follow_through/hinglish.py).
+
+## What it will not do
+
+This list is the design, not a disclaimer.
+
+- **It will not find every commitment.** It matches patterns in text. Something
+  phrased unusually will be missed, and some of what it finds will not really be
+  a commitment. Every report says so.
+- **It will not guess who owns something.** If the transcript does not say, the
+  owner stays `unknown`. It will not attribute a line to whoever was talking
+  most, and it will not turn `From:` or `TODO:` into an owner. "We'll decide on
+  Friday" commits a room, not whoever said "we", so that stays `unknown` too.
+  An owner is whoever the text names, which may be a team — "Legal will review
+  the contract" records Legal, because that is who was named.
+- **It will not guess a deadline.** No timing phrase means no deadline. It records
+  the phrase the speaker actually used — `by Friday`, `in 3 days` — as text, and
+  never converts it to a calendar date, because that would mean assuming when the
+  conversation happened.
+- **It will not decide that something was done.** Only you close an entry, and a
+  reason is required when you do.
+- **It will not score anyone.** There is no reliability metric and no leaderboard.
+- **It will not send anything anywhere.**
+
+One rule sits underneath all of these: absence of evidence is reported as
+unknown, never as a confirmed no.
+
+### Deliberate trade-offs
+
+These are choices, not oversights. Each one loses something real, and each one
+was measured against 1,067 real meeting records before it was made.
+
+- **A conditional is not a commitment.** "If we extend the last call, we will
+  need to ask people to check the model" is rejected, and so is the genuine
+  undertaking that sometimes follows one. On the corpus most sentences of this
+  shape were conditions rather than promises, so the exclusion stays.
+- **A bare third-party future is only kept when it states a limit.** "A revised
+  draft will be posted by Friday" is recorded with no owner. "The routers will
+  have the whole table" is not recorded at all, because in a technical meeting
+  "will" is more often a prediction than a promise.
+- **An acronym never owns a commitment.** "TCPCL will wait for review" records
+  nothing. That also means "IESG will publish it" records nothing. A protocol,
+  a document and a working-group short name all look identical to a part
+  number, and naming one as the person responsible is exactly the invention
+  this tool exists not to make. Write the owner as a word — `Legal`, `Chairs` —
+  and it is recorded.
+- **"I can" counts only at the start of a clause, and only unhedged.** "I can
+  write the text" is an offer. "It is nice to have this as I can just mirror it
+  in my code" is not, and "I could possibly reach out" is not either.
+- **An exclusion applies to the whole sentence.** "I sent the draft last week
+  and I'll post the update by Friday" is rejected because of its first half.
+  Splitting a sentence into clauses reliably is a bigger change than this tool
+  is, and rejecting too much is the safer failure.
+- **A bare institution or a country is still recorded as an owner.** "China will
+  continue to expand its fleet" records China, and it is a forecast rather than
+  anything anybody in the room can be held to. The article rule above catches
+  "the Committee" and "the Department"; it cannot catch "China" or "Congress",
+  because a bare capitalised proper noun naming a state has exactly the same
+  shape as a surname. Separating them needs a gazetteer or a part-of-speech
+  tagger, and this package carries no dependencies. It is a limit of the tool in
+  this genre, written down here rather than half-filtered.
+- **Ambiguous narration is kept rather than dropped.** "Let me go to Mr
+  Pugliaresi" is floor management; "I will go to the vendor and get a quote" is
+  work, and one sentence does not separate them. So verbs like *go to*, *move
+  on* and *turn to* are only treated as narration after "let me" or "let us", or
+  when they address somebody by title. Everywhere else the false positive is
+  kept, because losing a commitment is the worse error.
+- **A document under forty lines is never measured for wrapping.** Below that
+  the percentile is just the longest line again, which is the statistic that
+  failed, so short files keep the cautious rule and a wrapped one may still be
+  read in fragments. This is the shape of the tool's own examples, which is
+  worth saying: the fixtures in this repository are too short to exercise the
+  measurement, and that is exactly how the defect in it survived a test suite.
+- **The orthography test needs the evidence to be in the file.** "Due to visa
+  rules, we would not comment" is refused in a transcript that says "due to"
+  somewhere in lower case, which any real one does many times over. In a file of
+  a few lines that happens to use the word only once, and capitalised, there is
+  nothing to contradict it and the line is recorded. The test gets stronger the
+  longer the document is, which is the opposite of the usual failure and worth
+  knowing.
+- **An unmarked action item can lose its owner to the orthography test.**
+  "Chairs to schedule an interim", with no bullet and no deadline, in a document
+  that also writes "the chairs" in lower case, is dropped. Put a bullet in front
+  of it or a date inside it and it is kept. The test removes 630 findings on a
+  real corpus that were the preposition frame wearing a capital letter; this is
+  what it costs, and it costs it only to single-word owners that are also
+  ordinary English words.
+- **One sentence yields one owner.** "Carsten, Jim and Christian volunteered to
+  review" records Christian, the name nearest the verb. It records a real
+  person, and it under-reports the other two.
+
+## How it decides
+
+The rules are ordinary regular expressions, kept together as data in
+[`follow_through/cues.py`](follow_through/cues.py) so you can read and extend
+them without touching any logic. There is no model involved.
+
+A sentence becomes a candidate when it contains someone undertaking to do
+something (`I'll`, `we will`, `let me`, `let's`, `I can write`), handing work to
+somebody else (`please send`, `Priya will`, `Mark agreed to`), or writing it down
+as an action item (`Mark to post the revised draft`, `Ask the WG to adopt it`).
+It is rejected when it is hypothetical, negated, tentative, or already in the
+past — `if I get time`, `I don't think I'll`, `I might`, `I already sent`,
+`Mozilla will not implement`.
+
+Contractions require their apostrophe, straight or typographic. This reads like
+a detail and is not one: `we'?ll` also matches the ordinary word "well", and on
+1,067 real transcripts that single optional character produced 36.7% of
+everything the tool reported.
+
+A question is only an assignment when it asks for something. "Could you post
+that to the list?" is a request; "Can you explain the difference between the two
+modes?" is a question at a microphone, and recording it as an obligation was the
+tool's second largest source of noise.
+
+Nothing quoted is read as a commitment. A scribe writing down what somebody else
+said is reporting, not recording a promise, and a negated future — "X will not
+do Y" — is refused in every person.
+
+Four shapes carry a commitment without any of the words above, and all four are
+read:
+
+- **Committing in so many words.** "Will you commit to working with my office?"
+  and the answer, "I certainly can commit to working with you." The verb is the
+  cue. So is an expectation put on the record — "I hope you will consult with
+  the public".
+- **A subject the scribe dropped.** "Fangwei: will move the model to that
+  format." The label already said who, so the sentence does not. Only read
+  where a label is present, and only for an act: "will be sending the text" is
+  an undertaking, "will be discussed on the list" has no agent in it and "will
+  need more review" is a state.
+- **Reported speech.** "Jankowicz says she will abide by it." Minutes are
+  written afterwards, so this is their ordinary voice. The name in front of the
+  reporting verb is the person committing.
+- **A note-style action item.** "Mark to post the revised draft."
+
+That last one is also the most dangerous cue in the tool, because English uses
+the same shape for something else entirely: "According to this scheme", "Due to
+visa rules", "Thanks to the Chair". Three tests keep them apart, and none of
+them is a list of prepositions.
+
+The word after `to` has to be able to begin an infinitive. A bare verb does; a
+determiner or a pronoun does not, and that makes the `to` a preposition. `be` is
+allowed, because "Mirja to be the responsible AD" is a real assignment.
+
+The head must not be a word this document also writes in lower case. A capital
+at the start of a sentence carries no information — the capital is the sentence.
+When the same file says "due to" and "want to" in lower case elsewhere, the
+capital was punctuation. A name never gets that contradiction, and every word of
+a name has to be contradicted before the head is refused, so "Mark Nottingham"
+survives a document that also contains the verb "mark".
+
+A bullet in front of the line, or a deadline inside it, overrides that last
+test. Either is independent evidence that a scribe was writing an item.
+
+Against all of that runs one more filter: a first-person undertaking whose verb
+is an act of speech inside the meeting is narration, not a commitment. Yielding,
+recognising, backing up, refreshing your memory and going to the next witness do
+not outlive the room.
+
+Owners come from speaker labels. `Alex:`, `[00:14] Sam Okafor:`,
+`Tony Li (TL):`, `Suresh Krishnan, Kaloom:`, `ekr:` and `<mnot>` are all read as
+people; a real transcript uses every one of those shapes. A first-person
+undertaking belongs to whoever is speaking. A named assignment belongs to the
+person named. A collective undertaking belongs to nobody. When two of these
+appear in one sentence the owner is genuinely unclear, so it is left unknown.
+
+A heading ends the current speaker's turn, including when it sits alone on its
+line — `Action items:` with nothing after it. A pasted mail quote (`> ...`) ends
+it too: those are somebody else's words.
+
+Filler is treated differently from a hypothetical. "I might look at it" and
+"we'll never get this done" are rejected outright, whatever else the sentence
+says. "Let me know if that works" is rejected only because nothing was promised
+by when — "Let me know the vendor's answer by Friday" is kept.
+
+What counts for that second rule is a phrase that names when work is due: `by
+Friday`, `before Monday`, `within two days`, `end of week`, `on Thursday`.
+Merely mentioning a time does not, or "can you hear me today?" would be recorded
+as a commitment.
+
+The filler patterns match whole utterances rather than openings, because "let me
+start by welcoming everyone" and "let me start the migration" begin identically
+and only one of them is noise.
+
+Three details worth knowing, because they are where this could surprise you.
+
+A speaker label applies to the lines that follow it until the next label. That is
+how transcripts work, but it does mean an unlabelled line is attributed to
+whoever spoke last. A structural label such as `Notes:` ends that turn rather
+than continuing it.
+
+A word is treated as a name when it is capitalised and is not an ordinary English
+word. That is a filter, not name detection. It rejects `From:`, `TODO:` and
+`Actually`; it cannot tell an unusual name from an unusual noun, so a heading it
+has never heard of will read as a speaker. There is a test that says so.
+
+An owner is not necessarily a person. Whoever the sentence names is recorded —
+unless an article stands in front of the name. English does not put one in front
+of a person: "Priya will send the deck" names somebody, "The Committee will hold
+a hearing" and "our Chairs will decide" name a thing and a role. That single test
+replaces a list of institutions, and on a real corpus the institutions arrived
+almost entirely wearing "the".
+
+Transcripts are usually hard-wrapped at seventy or eighty columns, so a sentence
+routinely spans two lines. Read one line at a time, nearly half of what the tool
+found on raw wrapped files was cut off, and the deadline was normally in the half
+it threw away.
+
+So the file is measured first. A hard-wrapped file has a ceiling: nearly every
+line stops just short of one column, and the few that pass it are a URL, a table
+row or a rule of equals signs. That ceiling is read off the 95th percentile of
+the line lengths, never off the longest line — the longest line is the outlier
+the ceiling has to be measured in spite of. A file needs at least forty lines
+before the percentile can exclude anything, and a quarter of its lines have to
+sit in the band just under the ceiling; otherwise it is note-style minutes,
+where joining bullets into each other would be worse than not joining prose.
+
+In a file measured as wrapped, a line that stops short of the ceiling without
+punctuation is joined to the one below it whatever case that line starts in.
+Everywhere else the join only happens when the next line begins in lower case,
+which is the cautious rule. The cautious rule on its own was not enough:
+political testimony is full of proper nouns, so continuations begin with a
+capital constantly, and half-sentences like "Venezuelans to speak their minds
+has crumbled" were left looking like action items because they began a line.
+
+Every entry keeps the quoted sentence, the file and line it came from, and which
+rules fired. You can always check the tool's work against the source. The line
+number is the line the sentence started on, counted the way an editor counts:
+a page break inside an old plain-text transcript is not a new line.
+
+## Your data
+
+- Everything stays in the directory you run it in.
+- File paths are shortened before they are recorded: relative to the directory
+  you ran in when the file is below it, otherwise written with `~` in place of
+  your home directory. A file outside both is recorded in full, because by then
+  there is nothing left to hide.
+- `.gitignore` already excludes `transcripts/`, ledgers, and reports, so your own
+  material does not end up in a commit by accident.
+- The examples in this repository are invented. Lumen Freight does not exist, and
+  neither do Alex, Sam, or Jordan.
+
+## Tests
+
+```bash
+python3 -m unittest discover -s tests -t . -v
+```
+
+## Contributing
+
+Bounded, useful tasks are listed in [ROADMAP.md](ROADMAP.md), and
+[CONTRIBUTING.md](CONTRIBUTING.md) explains how the project is reviewed. New cue
+patterns are especially welcome — they are data, they are easy to test, and every
+one of them makes the tool find something it used to miss.
+
+## Honest status
+
+Version 0.2. The behaviour described here is covered by tests that run on every
+change, and the example above is checked in and compared against real output, so
+the documentation cannot drift away from the code.
+
+What it has not had is users. If it misses things in your transcripts, that is
+the most useful thing you could tell me, and an issue is welcome.
+
+## Against real documents
+
+Everything above says what the tool is meant to do. This section says what it
+did when it was pointed at documents nobody involved with it had written.
+
+**How this was measured.** Which 6,320 documents, how they were selected, which
+of the four measurement passes each figure below belongs to, and the complete
+800-sentence labelled set with its labels:
+[`docs/corpus-manifest.md`](docs/corpus-manifest.md). Its opening section carries
+the full account of how the 800 labels were produced, including the dispatch-by-
+dispatch record.
+
+### The corpus
+
+6,320 real meeting records, 184 MB: 5,733 IETF working-group minutes spanning
+IETF 65 in 2006 to IETF 126 in 2026, and 587 United States congressional hearing
+transcripts from seven years between 2016 and 2024 (2017 and 2020 were not
+sampled). Both are public records, neither was written for this tool, and no
+example in this repository came from either.
+
+### How it was scored
+
+A tool must not be allowed to grade itself, so two measures it did not produce.
+One of them is weaker than that phrasing suggests, and the weakness is stated below
+rather than left for the reader to discover.
+
+**The scribes' own answers.** Many IETF minutes carry an "Action items" block a
+human wrote during the meeting. The tool never sees that block; it reads the
+discussion, and the block says what a person present thought was agreed.
+
+**A blind labelling, by a model rather than by people.** 800 sentences were drawn
+uniformly at random from a population defined without reference to this tool's
+rules: any sentence in the corpus containing a marker from a fixed list of ordinary
+English future and obligation words. Each was marked a commitment or not by an
+isolated language model instance, five in total: four labelling 200 sentences each,
+and a fifth re-labelling one block of 200 to measure agreement. The fifth agreed
+with the first on 197 of 200, Cohen's kappa 0.92.
+
+No person labelled any of the 800 sentences. The isolation was real — each
+instance started fresh, was given the task from linguistic criteria alone, and was
+instructed not to read this tool's source and not to look for its answers, so no
+labeller could have copied it. But the labels come from the same model family that
+wrote the tool being graded, which satisfies "a tool must not grade itself" less
+completely than human annotation would. And the kappa is not human
+inter-annotator agreement: it is two runs of one model on one prompt, so read it
+as rubric stability rather than as evidence that two people would mark these
+sentences the same way. The scribes' own answers above do not have this problem,
+and they are the measure to weight.
+
+### What it did
+
+| | v0.1 | v0.2 |
+|---|---|---|
+| precision, 800 blind labels | 0.131 | 0.348 |
+| recall, 800 blind labels | 0.432 | 0.605 |
+| recall, whole pipeline over whole documents | 0.318 | 0.455 |
+| action items the scribes marked and it missed | 1,598 of 1,760 | 1,249 of 1,760 |
+| findings quoted cut off mid-sentence | 62.6% | 11.7% |
+| findings carrying a deadline | 1.5% | 3.7% |
+| hard-wrapped files correctly detected as wrapped | 24% | 84% |
+| total findings over the corpus | 90,529 | 63,540 |
+
+Four rounds of fixes sit behind that, and `tests/test_corpus_defects.py` is
+their regression suite: 88 tests whose fixtures are real corpus sentences rather
+than invented ones.
+
+The largest single defect was one optional apostrophe. `\bwe'?ll\b` matches the
+ordinary word **well**, and `\bi'?ll\b` matches **ill** — 31,599 findings, more
+than a third of everything the tool reported, came from that alone. It is now 96.
+
+The worst was a quoted slogan recorded as an open obligation owned by the group
+the slogan named. Two guards close it, and neither is a list of words.
+
+Two of the four rounds existed to fix something an earlier round had introduced.
+The cue added to catch `Mark to post the draft` also fired on the ordinary
+English preposition, so a report carried owners called According, Deferring and
+Due — 5.5% of all findings, now 1.8%. The line-rejoiner added to fix that
+measured a file's width from its longest line, so one URL or table row hid the
+wrap column and it missed 76% of the hard-wrapped files it existed for,
+including the transcript it had been written from. Both were caught by measuring
+again rather than by reading the summary of the fix. A synthetic fixture passes
+because whoever wrote it wrote it clean; only real files disagree with you.
+
+### What this establishes, and what it does not
+
+It establishes that the tool survives real input. 6,320 documents, zero crashes,
+zero timeouts, about a seventh of a second each.
+
+It establishes that every defect class listed above is real, because each one was
+found in a document somebody actually published.
+
+**It does not establish that this tool is good at reading your meetings.**
+Standards-body minutes and parliamentary hearings are two genres it was not
+designed for, in which most sentences containing "will" are prediction,
+procedure or rhetoric rather than promise. These are numbers from hostile
+ground, not a description of ordinary use. No measurement on ordinary business
+meeting transcripts exists, because no public corpus of them does — and a
+precision of 0.348 is not a good score by any reading.
+
+Three further limits, stated rather than buried. Both corpora are hard-wrapped
+at about seventy columns, so two thirds of the sampled sentences are cut
+mid-line; that is what the tool sees too, but it is harsher than
+one-sentence-per-line input. The whole corpus is English, so nothing in this
+section says anything at all about the Hinglish rules. And 71% of what human
+scribes wrote down as an action item is still missed: on written minutes this
+tool finds under a third of what a person in the room recorded.
+
+Follow Through was built with AI assistance, under human direction and reviewed
+before release.
+
+## Licence
+
+MIT. See [LICENSE](LICENSE).
+
+## Author
+
+[Waiga Arya](https://www.linkedin.com/in/waigaarya/), Director of Business Strategy and
+Innovation at Sadaway Pvt. Ltd. These tools were built for my own operating problems first.