Meetings that write themselves up — down to the tasks in your task list

I'm about to set up automatic meeting notes and want to walk
through the risks beforehand. The chain looks like this:

Recording: [tool]
Transcript comes from: [where, by whom]
Text processing: [tool / model, paid company account yes/no]
Task creation: [task list, via connector / automation]
Notes storage: [location]
Meeting types: [internal project / client / personnel / …]

Give me:
1. At which steps in the chain a copy of the recording or
   transcript gets created, and everywhere the data ends up living.
2. Which types of meetings I shouldn't run through this chain
   and why, sorted by risk.
3. What an internal policy for recording meetings should
   contain — a bulleted outline I can put on one page for colleagues.
4. Five questions I should ask IT or legal before turning this on.
5. What to do when someone objects to being recorded — a concrete
   procedure for whoever's running the meeting.

Be practical, no generic statements about the importance of
data protection.

Here's a raw meeting transcript. Fix systematic transcription
errors in it using this glossary, and don't change anything else.

Participant names and roles:
[name — role, name — role, …]

Names that get mangled in our environment:
[correct form = how the transcript usually hears it]
example: Havelka = Havlicka, Havelku; Orion = Oreon, O-Rion

Abbreviations and what they mean:
[abbreviation — meaning]

Rules:
- only fix instances where the context clearly shows what's meant
- where you're not sure, leave the original wording and flag it with [?]
- don't merge speakers, don't summarize, don't shorten — this is
  only about fixing names and terms
- return the full transcript, not an excerpt

Transcript:
[paste transcript]

You are a meeting note-taker. Pull structured output from the
transcript. Work strictly from the transcript — don't add
anything and don't guess.

Context:
Meeting: [name]. Date: [date]. Project: [project].
Participants and roles: [name — role, …]
Today's date for converting deadlines: [date]

Return exactly four sections with these headings, in this order:

## DECISIONS
Bullet points. For each: what was decided (a declarative sentence),
who decided it, what options were weighed.
Only things that were actually closed. If it was only a proposal,
it belongs in OPEN.

## TASKS
Each task on one line, in exactly this form:
TASK | owner | action starting with a verb | deadline MM/DD/YYYY | priority
Rules:
- owner is one name from the participant list, never “the team”
- convert relative deadlines to a date based on today's date
- when no deadline was stated, write UNDECIDED
- when it's unclear who took the task, write UNDECIDED for owner
- priority is high / medium / low based on how urgent it sounded
  in the meeting
- no compound tasks, one action per line

## OPEN
What was discussed and not closed: what it's about, what's
blocking a decision, who needs to close it out, and by when
it has to be decided.

## CONTEXT
Three to five sentences on what the meeting was about — for
someone who wasn't there. No names, no discussion details.

Don't write any introduction or conclusion, no explaining the
format. When a section is empty, write “none” under the heading.

Transcript:
[paste transcript]

Check this task list against the meeting transcript.
Don't fix anything, just list what you find.

For each task, assess:
1. Did it actually come across as a commitment in the transcript,
   or just as an idea or a conditional statement (“if we had
   time, we could…”)? For doubtful ones, quote the exact
   sentence from the transcript.
2. Does the owner match who actually took the task on in the
   transcript? Watch for spots where speakers switch.
3. Was the deadline actually stated in the transcript, or was it inferred?
4. Is there a task that came up in the transcript but is missing
   from the list?

At the end, list the lines I shouldn't create automatically,
with one sentence why for each.

Tasks:
[paste list]

Transcript:
[paste transcript]

You have a connector to [task list] connected.

Create items from this task list. These rules are non-negotiable:

- create everything in the “[Pending review]” project, never in
  the team's live projects
- task title = an action starting with a verb, max 80 characters
- in the task description, include: meeting name, date, the exact
  passage from the transcript the task is based on, and a link to
  the notes
- only set an owner where the name is unambiguous; otherwise leave
  the task unassigned and add a “no-owner” label
- only set a deadline where there's a specific date; for UNDECIDED,
  don't set any deadline and add a “no-deadline” label
- duplicates: before creating anything, check open tasks in the
  project, and if you find the same task with the same owner,
  don't create it again — just list it

Don't delete or edit any existing tasks.
At the end, give me a summary: what you created, what you skipped, and why.

Instructions for a scheduled task. Run every workday
at [5:30 PM].

Step 1: Go through [path / storage] and find meeting transcripts
created today that don't have finished notes yet (no file with
the same date and name exists in the [notes] folder).

Step 2: For each such transcript, create notes using the template
stored at [location] — four sections: DECISIONS, TASKS, OPEN,
CONTEXT. Keep the task-line format and the UNDECIDED rules exactly
as in the template.

Step 3: Save the notes as [YYYY-MM-DD]-[meeting-name].md
in the [notes] folder.

Step 4: Create tasks in [task list] in the “Pending review” project
following the rules in the template. Don't send anything to
participants.

Step 5: Send me a summary: how many meetings you processed, how
many tasks you created, which lines had UNDECIDED, and what needs
my review. If something failed, say what and for which file.

Never send out the notes, never edit existing tasks, never delete anything.
When you're not sure, stop and tell me.

Turn these notes into three outputs to send out.

1. FOR PARTICIPANTS: full notes, with three bullet points at the
   top — “what changed since last time” compared to the notes
   from [date of previous meeting].

2. FOR EACH TASK OWNER: a short personal block — their tasks with
   deadlines, one sentence of context for each, and a separate
   list of “what you're waiting on” and “what others are waiting
   on from you.”

3. FOR THE PROJECT PAGE: an archive version — heading
   [date] [meeting name], a list of decisions, a list of tasks,
   open items. No greeting, no pleasantries, so it still makes
   sense a year from now without context.

Don't add anything that isn't in the notes. Plain, matter-of-fact English.

You have access to an archive of meeting notes in [path]
(files named YYYY-MM-DD-name.md, four sections: DECISIONS,
TASKS, OPEN, CONTEXT).

Question: what did we decide about [topic] during [May 2026]?

Answer like this:
1. A chronologically sorted list of decisions on the topic —
   for each, the date, meeting name, the decision as stated, and who decided
2. How thinking on the topic evolved over time; where an earlier
   decision changed, show both versions
3. Tasks that came out of those decisions, and their status as
   last mentioned in the notes
4. What's still sitting in OPEN sections on this topic and was
   never resolved

For every claim, cite the filename it came from.
When the archive doesn't have an answer, say so — don't infer
anything from general knowledge.

Go through the notes for the [series name] meetings over
[time period] in [path] and produce an analysis.

Write:
1. Topics that showed up in three or more sets of notes without
   getting closed — for each, how many times and on which dates
2. Tasks whose deadline shifted more than once across the notes
3. How tasks are distributed among people — who got how many
   over the period
4. Decisions that were later changed, and how long they held
5. Items that repeatedly don't get covered

At the end, give three concrete suggestions for how to run this
meeting series differently, each backed by a number from above.

Work only from the content of the notes. Where you don't have
grounds for a claim, say so instead of estimating.

Here are the last [10] sets of notes the chain produced for me,
and my notes on what I had to fix by hand in each one:

[paste notes: what was wrong, in which set of notes]

Find the pattern in the corrections:
1. Which errors repeat, and at which step of the chain do they
   originate (transcription / extraction / task creation)?
2. What specific prompt change would fix each error — write the
   exact line I should add to the prompt.
3. Which of my corrections are actually not a chain error but my
   own shifting preference — those belong in the template, not the prompt.
4. What should I stop automating because it requires a judgment
   call a machine can't make?

Be specific, no generic recommendations.