Refresh a project board from weekly communications

Why use this

1. A project owner may finish a week of decisions across meetings and messages while the board still shows old dates and responsibilities. Updating it from memory risks losing the distinction between an agreed change and a suggestion.

2. This job could prepare a compact set of proposed board edits with evidence beside each one. Reviewing the changes before applying them helps the owner keep the board useful without silently assigning work or rewriting commitments.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Reconcile communications with existing board entries, identify contradictions and distinguish confirmed decisions from tentative discussion.

Simpler alternative

Update the board manually when changes are few and already documented in one place.

Unsuitable when

The task would infer ownership, deadlines or completion without adequate evidence and review.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Board snapshot

   Owner

   Project owner

   Minimum scope

   Relevant rows and stable identifiers

   Quality check

   Confirm current version and field meanings

2. Name

   Weekly evidence pack

   Owner

   Authorized participants

   Minimum scope

   Scoped messages, meeting notes and calendar context

   Quality check

   Check dates, decision authority and later corrections

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Read supplied copies and draft a change list; no live board access or writes.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Current communication connectors, board schema, permissions and runtime compatibility are unknown.

External actions requiring approval

1. Writing board changes, assigning owners, sending updates or sharing private communications requires approval.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Proposed board diff with old/new values, source pointers and unresolved questions.

Critical checks

1. Match edits to stable rows; preserve conflicting evidence; require review before write; avoid treating a meeting as proof of completion.

Missing output evidence

This overlay adds no new output inspection, execution or validation; consult the referenced canonical source outcome limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   A reschedule applies to only one milestone

   Why it matters

   A broad date edit changes unrelated work

   Proposed response

   Limit the proposal to the evidenced milestone.

2. Signal

   A suggestion becomes an assigned task

   Why it matters

   The board invents an obligation

   Proposed response

   Mark it proposed and ask for owner confirmation.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Define update fields and decision-evidence rules.

Ongoing review

1. Owner reviews changes and checks the board after any authorized write.

Unknowns

1. Source completeness, concurrent edits, mapping effort and service costs are unknown.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Invent a board with three milestones and messages containing one confirmed date change, one suggestion and one contradiction; draft a diff.

Acceptance checks

1. Apply no changes; distinguish statuses; preserve row IDs; flag the contradiction.

Stop conditions

1. Stop if row identity, approval authority or intended field meaning is unclear.

Limits

1. A refreshed board cannot establish accepted commitments or real-world completion beyond the supporting evidence.