People stop reading AI meeting notes the first time an action item is attributed to somebody who did not agree to it. The fix is not a better model or a longer prompt: it is requiring every extracted item to carry the exact words it came from, and deleting — in code, before anyone sees it — any item whose quote is not found in the transcript.
Why summaries are not trusted
A summary compresses, and compression is where things get invented. The reader has no way to check a claim like “the team agreed to postpone the launch” without rewatching the meeting, which is the thing the summary existed to avoid. So the reader either trusts it blindly or ignores it, and after one bad experience it is the second.
Attach a quote and the economics reverse: checking an item costs three seconds, so items get checked, so errors get caught early and the tool keeps its credit. Grounding an output in retrievable evidence is the general form; here the evidence is thirty words of transcript.
The output shape
