Best for
- Meetings whose decisions evaporate by Friday
- Turning a messy transcript into a five-line summary leadership reads
- Action items that currently live in seven people's memories
What you give it
- The raw material: your typed notes, a transcript, or both
- Corrections when it asks who owns an ambiguous action
What you get back
- Decisions extracted with their why — not just 'we agreed'
- Actions with one owner and one date each; unowned actions flagged, not fabricated
- Open questions and parked topics preserved, and last meeting's actions tracked through
How it works
- Separates the transcript's noise from its four products: decisions, actions, questions, information.
- Extracts decisions with their reasoning — the why is what prevents re-litigating in a month.
- Attributes actions only to stated owners; missing owners become flags, never guesses.
- Tracks continuity: what happened to the previous meeting's actions.
- Writes two layers: the five-line summary for skimmers, the full record for participants.
Example
You: Here is the transcript of our 50-minute product sync. Make it useful.
Result: Three decisions (with the reasoning that convinced the room), seven actions each with an owner and a date — two flagged 'no owner stated, assign one', four open questions, and a note that two of last week's actions were discussed as done but one was quietly dropped — surfaced, not buried.
Limits — please read
- It records what was said; it cannot recover what the room meant but never spoke.
- Attribution from poor transcripts is marked uncertain rather than invented.
- It nudges follow-up by making drift visible; enforcing accountability is still a human job.