Meeting Notes → Actions

Extract commitments from conversation. Attribute nothing that was not said.

When to use

Transcripts, standups, retros, planning sessions, client calls, 1:1s, interview debriefs, incident reviews.

Not for: summarising documents (no speakers, no commitments) or drafting an agenda for a future meeting.

Core discipline

The single biggest failure mode is inventing certainty. A conversation is full of half-commitments. Classify each item honestly:

Never promote an idea to an action. Never invent an owner. Never invent a date.

Workflow

1. Pass one — map the meeting

Identify participants and roles, the meeting's purpose, and the topic boundaries. Note timestamps or line references if present; you will cite them.

1b. Run the extractor

python3 scripts/extract_actions.py transcript.txt --meeting-date 2026-07-28

It splits speaker turns, classifies each sentence as commitment / decision / idea / question / risk / parked / reversal, attributes a speaker, resolves relative dates against the meeting date, and marks every unowned or undated item.

It deliberately over-collects. Its output is a candidate list you verify in pass two — never paste it into the final notes unreviewed.

2. Pass two — extract, with evidence

For every candidate item, record the supporting quote. If you cannot quote it, it does not go in the output.

Action items need five fields:

3. Pass three — resolve references

• Relative dates → absolute, using the meeting date; mark inference.
• Pronouns → named people; if genuinely ambiguous, write [AMBIGUOUS: "he" — could be Marc or Tom] rather than choosing.
• Jargon and acronyms → expand on first use if inferable from context, else flag.
• Duplicates → merge, keeping the strongest commitment.
• Superseded items → keep only the final version, and note the reversal if the change matters ("initially agreed X, reversed to Y at 34:10").

4. Pass four — audit before writing

• Does every action have a quote behind it?
• Any action with an owner who never spoke a commitment? Downgrade it.
• Any decision that was actually still being debated at the end? Move it to Unresolved.
• Anything sensitive (compensation, personnel, legal exposure)? Flag it for restricted distribution rather than dropping it silently.

Output format

# <Meeting title> — <YYYY-MM-DD>
**Attendees:** …  **Duration:** …  **Purpose:** one line

## TL;DR
Three bullets maximum. What changed as a result of this meeting.

## Decisions
| # | Decision | Rationale | Decided by | Reversible? |

## Action items
| # | Action | Owner | Due | Depends on | Evidence |

## Open questions
| Question | Who can answer | Needed by |

## Risks & blockers
| Item | Impact | Mitigation discussed | Owner |

## Discussed, not decided
Bullets — ideas parked without commitment.

## Flags
- Unassigned actions: N
- Actions without dates: N
- Ambiguities: …

Order sections by what the reader acts on first. If the meeting produced no decisions, say so explicitly — that is useful information.

Tools

python3 scripts/extract_actions.py notes.txt --meeting-date 2026-07-28 --format md

The script resolves "next Tuesday", "end of week", "in 3 weeks" and "Q4" to absolute dates and always labels them as inferred. It flags "asap"/"soon" as non-dates rather than guessing.

Worked example

Input

Sarah: …so the migration is behind. We said end of Q3 but realistically that's not happening. Marc: What's the blocker? Sarah: Mainly the schema rewrite. Tom's been pulled onto the billing incident. Marc: Okay. I think we push to Q4. Anyone object? … Right, Q4 it is. I'll update the roadmap deck before the board meeting. Sarah: I can take the schema rewrite off Tom's plate, get you a plan by next Tuesday. Marc: Do we need to tell the Acme account team? Sarah: Probably? Their integration depends on it. Someone should check the contract for a date commitment. Marc: Let's park that until we know the Q4 date is firm.

Output (extract) — meeting date 2026-07-28

Decisions

Action items

Open questions

Discussed, not decided

• Notifying the Acme account team — parked pending confirmation of Q4.

Flags

• "Someone should check the contract" — no owner assigned; needs one.
• A1 has no concrete due date; the board meeting date was never stated.

Quality checklist

• extract_actions.py output reviewed candidate by candidate, not pasted through
• Every action traceable to a quote
• No owner assigned who did not accept the work
• Every relative date resolved and marked (inferred)
• Ideas kept out of the action list
• Unresolved disagreements recorded, not smoothed over
• Reversals and superseded decisions handled
• Unassigned actions and missing dates surfaced in Flags
• TL;DR readable in 15 seconds
• Sensitive content flagged for restricted distribution