Groundnote Meeting Evidence Standard
A practical minimum for making consequential meeting records reviewable. The Standard defines what a record should contain, what can support it, how people can verify it, and which changes should remain visible.
Purpose and scope
The Meeting Evidence Standard applies to individual decisions, commitments, owners, dates, risks, and questions created from meeting input. It can be used with Groundnote, another product, or a manual process.
Required means a record cannot meet this Standard without the item. Recommended means the item materially improves review. Optional means it depends on the workflow or available evidence.
Groundnote publishes this vendor-authored Standard. It has not been independently validated and is not a certification, legal opinion, records-management standard, or guarantee that an AI-generated outcome is correct.
Requirements for every consequential record
- Required fields: record type, concise statement, meeting or source context, creation time, current verification state, and current responsible reviewer where one exists.
- Acceptable evidence: a directly relevant transcript passage, recording position, speaker attribution, document, image, linked work item, or explicit human confirmation.
- Verification states: AI-inferred, needs review, human-confirmed, corrected, disputed, rejected, or superseded.
- Common failure modes: detached summaries, inferred owners presented as accepted, unsupported dates, missing context, silent edits, and overwritten decisions.
- Minimum audit history: who or what created the record, state changes, substantive edits, dispute or rejection, superseding record, and timestamps.
Decision
Required fields: the decision statement, decision state, source context, and decision date. Add the accountable group or person when the meeting establishes one.
Acceptable evidence: an explicit approval, choice, rejection, or direction in the transcript or recording; approved minutes; or a named participant's direct confirmation.
Common failure modes: treating a proposal as approval, omitting conditions, merging several decisions, or replacing an earlier decision without preserving history.
Decision: Move the release to 18 September, conditional on completion of the security review.
Evidence: speaker, timestamp, relevant quotation, and confirmation by the meeting chair.
State: Human-confirmed. The previous release date remains linked as superseded.
Commitment, owner, and due date
Required fields: action, proposed owner, current ownership state, and source context. A due date is required only when one was stated or later accepted.
Acceptable evidence: an explicit first-person commitment, direct assignment followed by acceptance, or a later confirmation from the responsible person.
Common failure modes: interpreting a suggestion as a commitment, assigning the nearest named person, converting vague timing into a precise date, or treating delivery as accepted before the owner responds.
Commitment: Complete the security review by 11 September.
Evidence: source quotation and timestamp. The assignee corrected the inferred date from 10 to 11 September.
State: Accepted. The correction and both values remain in the audit history.
Risk and open question
Required fields: a neutral statement, source context, status, and owner when one is assigned. A risk should separate the uncertain event from its possible consequence.
Acceptable evidence: a participant's stated concern, unresolved dependency, documented assumption, or explicitly unanswered question.
Common failure modes: presenting speculation as fact, removing an open question because the meeting ended, or assigning probability and impact values that nobody assessed.
Changed decision and disputed commitment
A changed decision must create or link to a superseding record. The original statement, evidence, state, and history remain accessible. A disputed commitment must preserve the proposed action and attribution while clearly showing that the named person did not accept it.
Minimum audit history: previous value, new value or dispute reason, actor, timestamp, source of the change, and links between related records.
AI-inferred and human-confirmed outcomes
An AI-inferred outcome is a candidate interpretation. It must identify its inferred state and available source evidence; it must not imply that a person accepted the statement.
A human-confirmed outcome records who confirmed it, when confirmation occurred, what was confirmed, and whether the confirmer changed the inferred record. Confirmation does not prove the underlying statement beyond the scope of that person's review.
Conformance statement
A workflow may state that a record meets Groundnote Meeting Evidence Standard 1.0 only when every required item for that record type is available for review. Partial use should name the missing requirement instead of claiming conformance.
Groundnote does not currently provide or authorise independent certification against this Standard.