Write a PRD

PRD: AI Meeting Summaries and Action Items

Product: Huddle Audience: Engineering and Design leads Status: Proposed MVP Launch decision: Ship reviewed summaries first; defer immediate, unreviewed owner emails.

1. Problem and opportunity

Huddle serves 3,000 companies. Meetings are recorded and transcribed with speaker labels, but attendees currently write their own notes afterward. This creates duplicated effort, inconsistent records of decisions, and missed follow-through.

We will generate a concise meeting summary containing decisions and action items, with evidence linking each item to the recording.

Two known limitations shape the design:

• Speaker labels are wrong approximately 8% of the time, especially during overlapping speech and shared-room participation.
• Approximately 15% of meetings include someone absent from the calendar invite.

Therefore, neither speaker labels nor calendar invitations are sufficient evidence for assigning work.

Non-negotiable requirement: An action must never be assigned to someone who did not attend the meeting. When attendance or identity cannot be established, leave the action unassigned.

2. Goals and non-goals

Goals

• Reduce time spent producing post-meeting notes.
• Capture decisions accurately, distinguishing decisions from proposals.
• Extract actionable commitments with owners and deadlines when supported.
• Include verified, uninvited attendees without treating all invitees as attendees.
• Make every decision and action inspectable and correctable.
• Deliver owner notifications only after safe assignment and publication.

Non-goals for MVP

• Live summaries or action assignment during meetings.
• Assigning work to absent colleagues, even if requested during the meeting.
• Inferring deadlines or assigning owners based on job title.
• External task-system integrations.
• Automatically publishing unreviewed summaries.
• Resolving identity using voice biometrics.

3. Users and primary workflow

Reviewer: Meeting organizer, or an explicitly designated attendee. Reviews and publishes the summary.

Attendee: Reads the summary, follows evidence links, and reports corrections.

Action owner: Receives published actions assigned to them.

Workflow:

1. Meeting ends; Huddle completes transcript processing.
2. Huddle reconciles actual attendance and generates a private draft.
3. Reviewer checks decisions, unresolved ownership, and attendance exceptions.
4. Reviewer edits and publishes.
5. Huddle makes the summary available to authorized viewers and, where enabled, emails owners their approved actions.

If no eligible reviewer is available, the draft remains unpublished. A non-attending organizer may designate an attending reviewer but cannot resolve attendance exceptions themselves.

4. Attendance and identity requirements

Engineering must establish an attendance ledger separate from the calendar invite.

Each record contains:

• Meeting ID and stable person ID, where resolved.
• Join/leave intervals and participant-session IDs.
• Identity source: authenticated join, verified guest identity, or shared-room roster.
• Verification state and evidence.
• Reviewer confirmation details, where required.

Calendar invitees are suggestions for identity matching, not proof of attendance. A directory search result is also not attendance evidence.

Assignment eligibility

An owner must map to a unique person with verified attendance in that meeting:

• Authenticated individual join: Eligible when attendance telemetry records the person’s session.
• Guest join: Eligible only after identity is resolved and verified; a display name alone is insufficient.
• Shared meeting room: The room endpoint proves room participation, not individual presence. A participating reviewer must explicitly confirm each person physically present before they become eligible.
• Uninvited attendee: Eligible through the same verification rules; invitation status is irrelevant.
• Invited but absent person: Ineligible.

If telemetry is unavailable, identity is ambiguous, or attendance is disputed, block assignment. Keep the action unassigned with an explanation.

The owner picker must show only eligible attendees. Every write path—including generation, manual edits, APIs, and publication—must enforce eligibility server-side. Model confidence must never override this rule.

These controls cannot independently observe who is physically in a room. If trustworthy roster confirmation is unavailable, shared-room individuals remain ineligible rather than weakening the constraint.

5. Summary and extraction requirements

The draft has four sections:

1. Overview: Two to four sentences describing the meeting’s purpose and outcome.
2. Decisions: Clear statements of agreed outcomes.
3. Action items: Task, owner or “Unassigned,” deadline if explicit, and status.
4. Needs review: Uncertain decisions, ownership, identity, or attendance.

Each decision and action must include transcript-span references and recording timestamps. Preserve the original supporting text even when the reviewer edits the final wording.

Decisions

Capture explicit agreement or a clearly accepted conclusion. Do not convert brainstorming, recommendations, or unresolved debate into decisions. If discussion reverses an earlier decision, represent the final outcome and retain supporting evidence.

Actions

Extract a concrete deliverable or next step. Record a deadline only when explicitly stated; normalize relative dates using the meeting’s date and timezone.

Examples:

• “I’ll send the revised deck tomorrow.” → Task with a candidate owner, subject to attribution review.
• “Someone should update the deck.” → Unassigned action.
• “Ask Priya to update it,” when Priya was absent → Unassigned action; note that an absent person was mentioned.
• “We could revisit this next quarter.” → Not an action without a clear commitment.

Speaker labels provide evidence, not authority. Overlap, shared-room speech, ambiguous pronouns, and conflicting commitments must trigger ownership review. Candidate owners are draft suggestions, not assignments, until approved.

6. Review experience

The summary page opens in Draft state with a clear “Review before sharing” banner.

Design must provide:

• Editable decision and action cards.
• Evidence links opening the relevant transcript and recording segment.
• Visible distinction between verified attendance and uncertain attribution.
• “Unassigned” as a first-class owner option.
• A dedicated queue for identity and attendance exceptions.
• A publish preview showing recipients and notification settings.

For each assigned action, the reviewer must approve the owner. Bulk approval is permitted for straightforward items, but flagged attribution requires item-level review.

Attendance verification and ownership approval are separate controls: confirming that someone attended does not prove they accepted a task.

Publication is blocked if any assigned owner is ineligible. Unassigned actions and unresolved decision candidates do not block publication; uncertain decisions must be omitted from the final Decisions section or explicitly labeled unresolved.

7. Email policy and Sales request

Sales requests automatic emails immediately after each meeting. MVP will not send unreviewed action assignments. Given the known speaker errors, immediate delivery would spread incorrect ownership before correction.

Instead:

• Notify the reviewer when the draft is ready.
• Default owner emails to off; enable through workspace settings.
• When enabled, automatically email approved owners after publication.
• Send each owner only their actions, meeting title, deadlines, and an authorized summary link.
• Never email a calendar invitee solely because they were invited.
• Do not send to guests without a verified address and permitted access.

Email dispatch must recheck eligibility and publication version. Use idempotency keys to prevent duplicate sends. Published ownership changes generate a correction for the previous recipient and an updated notification for the new eligible owner.

Future immediate automation requires a separate launch decision and evidence that it preserves the attendance constraint.

8. Technical implementation

Use an asynchronous pipeline:

`Meeting ended → Transcript ready → Attendance reconciled → Draft generated → Reviewed → Published → Notifications`

Proposed records:

• `Summary`: meeting ID, transcript version, state, generated content, revision.
• `Decision`: text, evidence spans, review state.
• `Action`: task, proposed owner, approved owner, deadline, evidence, review state.
• `AttendanceRecord`: identity, evidence, verification state.
• `AuditEvent`: actor, change, timestamp, revision.

Generation returns schema-validated structured data. Treat transcript content as untrusted input: instructions spoken during a meeting must not alter system rules, access controls, or recipient selection.

Owner writes and publication run through a centralized eligibility validator. Notification jobs check the current revision before sending. Attendance corrections invalidate affected assignments and cancel queued notifications. Maintain an audit trail rather than silently rewriting history.

9. Reliability, privacy, and access

Target draft availability: within five minutes of transcript completion for 95% of supported meetings.

Generation failures must leave recordings and transcripts usable, show retry status, and send no owner emails.

Drafts are visible only to reviewers. Published summaries inherit meeting-content access rules; attendance alone does not grant access. Recording evidence links must enforce existing permissions. Apply workspace retention and deletion policies to summaries, attendance evidence, and generated artifacts.

10. Success metrics and acceptance

Proposed launch gates

• Zero assignments to ineligible attendees across automated invariant tests.
• Zero emails to ineligible owners in the pilot; any confirmed incident pauses rollout.
• At least 90% of published decisions require no substantive reviewer correction.
• Median review time below three minutes for meetings under one hour.
• At least 30% less self-reported note-taking time in the pilot.

Measure owner-correction rate separately from attendance violations: a wrong attending owner is still a quality failure.

Required acceptance cases

Test absent invitees, verified uninvited guests, shared rooms, overlapping speakers, duplicate names, failed identity resolution, missing telemetry, absent people named in requests, transcript reprocessing, attendance revoked before dispatch, and repeated notification retries.

In every uncertain-attendance case, expected behavior is an unassigned action and no owner email.

11. Rollout and dependencies

Start with internal meetings, then an opt-in pilot across varied company sizes and shared-room usage. Expand only after launch gates pass.

Before implementation, confirm availability of participant-session telemetry, guest identity verification, room-roster confirmation, reviewer permissions, and verified email addresses. If these dependencies are missing, ship summaries with unassigned actions for affected participants rather than substituting calendar membership as attendance proof.

PRD: AI Meeting Summaries with Decisions and Action Items

Status: Draft for engineering and design leads Product: Huddle

1. Problem

Huddle records and transcribes meetings with speaker labels, but attendees still write their own notes afterward. Notes are late, inconsistent, or never written, so decisions get lost and action items have no clear owner. We will generate a summary after each meeting that lists decisions and proposes action items with owners.

2. Goals and non-goals

Goals - Produce a summary within 5 minutes of meeting end: decisions, action items (task, owner, due date if stated), and open questions. - Never assign an action item to someone who was not in the meeting (hard constraint, see §4). - Keep the host's review to under 60 seconds for a typical meeting.

Non-goals (v1) - Fully automatic emailing of action items to owners (see §3). - Cross-meeting task tracking or integrations with Jira, Asana, and similar tools. - Summaries for meetings without a transcript.

3. Decision on the Sales request

Sales asked for action items to be emailed automatically to owners the moment a meeting ends. We are not building that for v1. Instead, we will send the draft summary to the host at meeting end. The host can send it to owners with one click, and owners are emailed on send.

Reasons: - Speaker labels are wrong about 8% of the time. An automatic email would sometimes tell a real person they own a task they never agreed to. Because it goes out with no human check, the error becomes visible to a customer's colleagues. - Email is irreversible, so a wrong or non-attendee assignment cannot be quietly fixed afterward. - The underlying Sales need is that owners hear about their tasks quickly and nothing falls through the cracks. A host prompt at meeting end with one-click send meets that need at the cost of a few seconds.

Path to automation: Auto-send will be an opt-in, per-workspace setting, considered after launch once the gates in §9 are met. It would send only high-confidence, presence-verified items and leave everything else for host review. Engineering should build the send pipeline so that auto-send is later a policy change rather than a rebuild.

4. The hard constraint: who can own an action item

Rule: An action item's owner must be a participant who was actually in the meeting when the item was discussed. Anyone else is ineligible.

This rule cannot rely on the calendar invite, and it cannot rely on the model behaving well.

Attendance source. The eligible-owner roster is built from Huddle's session join/leave logs, not from the calendar invite. This handles both failure modes: - Invitees who never joined are not on the roster. - The roughly 15% of meetings with uninvited joiners include those people, matched to a user account when possible.

Presence at time of item. A person is eligible for an item only if they were in the session at the timestamp of the relevant utterance. Someone who left at minute 10 cannot own an item from minute 40.

Enforcement is structural, not prompt-based. 1. The extraction step receives the roster as a list of participant IDs and must return an owner ID from that list or `null`. 2. A deterministic validator runs after the model. It rejects any owner ID not on the roster or not present at the item's timestamp, and it converts that item to unassigned. 3. The UI and email layers accept only validated owner IDs. There is no free-text owner field on the model output path. 4. Names mentioned in the transcript who were not present ("have Dana look at it") produce an unassigned item. The text may keep the speaker's wording, but Dana gets no assignment and no email.

Shared rooms. A room device usually appears as one participant, so individuals in the room are not in the presence log. We cannot verify that a named person is in the room. Such items become unassigned by default, and the host can attest who was in the room during review (§6). That attestation counts as human-verified presence.

Uninvited joiners without an account (guests) can be eligible owners, shown by display name. They receive email only if the host supplies an address during review. We never guess addresses.

5. Handling speaker-label errors

The 8% label error rate is concentrated in crosstalk and shared rooms. Eligible-owner enforcement does not solve it, because a mislabel can still pick the wrong person who was present. Mitigations:

Confidence tiers (High/Medium/Low) are stored on each item, shown to the host in review, and used later to gate auto-send. Thresholds are set empirically during the evaluation in §9. The tiers themselves are a v1 requirement.

6. User experience

Host flow 1. The meeting ends and the host gets a notification: "Summary ready to review." 2. The review screen lists: - Decisions as short statements, each linked to the transcript moment. - Action items with the task, owner chip, due date if stated, and a confidence indicator. - Unassigned items grouped at the top of the actions list, so gaps are visible. 3. The host can edit text, reassign from a picker limited to eligible people, delete items, or add room attendees ("Who was in the room?"). Adding room attendees makes them eligible for items in the room segments. 4. Send emails each owner their own items plus the decisions. Unassigned items go to no one.

Design requirements - Every item has a "jump to source" link that plays the transcript segment. Reviewing should be verification, not re-listening. - The owner picker never offers non-attendees. If the host wants to assign to an absent person, show a separate option, "Send as a follow-up (not from the meeting)," which is a different item type with clearly different wording and no "you agreed to" language. Design to decide whether this ships in v1; the default is that it does not. - Low-confidence owners appear as suggestions ("Suggested: Sam") and never as assignments. - Email copy says "Action item from Meeting name, date", includes the source excerpt, and offers a "This isn't mine" link that notifies the host. This gives owners a correction path. - If the host does not review, send a reminder at 24 hours. Nothing is sent to owners without host action in v1.

7. Functional requirements

1. Roster service: builds the per-meeting roster with join/leave intervals from session logs and links to user accounts where possible.
2. Extraction: from the transcript and roster, produce decisions, action items, and unassigned items. Each action item has task text, owner ID or null, due date or null, source timestamps, and a confidence tier.
3. Validator: enforces §4 as code with unit tests, independent of the model, and logs every rejection.
4. Review UI: as described in §6, on web and desktop. Mobile is view-only for v1.
5. Delivery: per-owner emails on host send, with a record of who was emailed. Sends are idempotent, and edits after sending trigger an explicit "send update" action.
6. Audit log: stores for each item the model output, validator result, host edits, and send events.
7. Admin setting: workspace-level toggle for summaries, plus retention aligned with existing transcript retention.

8. Edge cases to specify and test

• Invitee never joined but is mentioned as owner.
• Uninvited joiner takes an action; the guest has no account.
• Person leaves and rejoins (multiple intervals).
• Two people share a first name; ownership must resolve by roster, and ambiguity means unassigned.
• Whole meeting in a shared room (all items default unassigned until the host attests).
• Multiple languages, or a transcript with large gaps.
• Nobody commits to anything: show "No action items detected" rather than inventing some.

9. Success metrics and launch gates

Launch gates (must all pass) - Zero non-attendee assignments across a labeled evaluation set of at least 500 meetings, deliberately oversampled for uninvited joiners, shared rooms, no-show invitees, and crosstalk. Any production occurrence afterward is a Sev-1 incident. - Among High-confidence items, wrong-attendee assignment rate of 3% or less (target, to be validated against the evaluation set; propose a stricter figure if data supports it). - Median summary delivery within 5 minutes of meeting end.

Post-launch metrics - Share of meetings where the host sends the summary within 1 hour. - Host edit rate per item, and owner "This isn't mine" rate. - Share of action items left unassigned. Some is healthy, but a high rate means the model is too timid.

Auto-send criteria (future): two consecutive months of High-tier precision above the agreed bar and no non-attendee incidents. Sales and Support are consulted before enabling.

10. Risks and open questions

• Sales disagreement. Sales may see the host step as friction. We should share §3 with them early and offer a pilot of auto-send with a few design-partner accounts after the gates are met.
• Hosts skipping review. If sending rates are low, the fix is better reminders and faster review, not removing the check.
• Presence data quality. Do our session logs reliably capture join/leave for all clients and dial-in users? Engineering to confirm in week 1.
• Guest privacy. Can we email or display guest names without consent, given customer policies? Legal to advise.
• Room attestation. Is host attestation adequate for the constraint, or should room participants confirm individually? Recommend host attestation for v1.
• Follow-up items for absent people. Ship in v1 or defer? Design and Product to decide.

11. Milestones

1. Weeks 1–2: roster service, presence data audit, evaluation set labeling begins.
2. Weeks 3–5: extraction, validator, confidence tiers, offline evaluation.
3. Weeks 4–7: review UI and email delivery, in parallel.
4. Weeks 8–9: internal dogfood, gate review.
5. Week 10: limited beta with design-partner customers, including Sales' accounts.