# Worked research report: meeting records to action tracking

Editorial teaching edition, 2026-11-03. Based on the actual Ofox Chat Japanese run and subsequent Russian adaptation. This is a condensed, paraphrased review copy, not the raw generated file. The twelve-row ledger preserves the agent's verification statuses; a separate AI-assisted check rechecked S01, S06, S07, S08 and S10 only. No human review or independent Russian-market research was conducted.

## 1. Question and scope
Do small teams have an unmet need to turn online meeting records into owner/deadline action lists and update them afterwards? Public desk research prioritized 2026-10-05 through 2026-11-03, then admitted older material with dates. This was a purposive search, not a representative sample. Team-size limits were not specified, so no population estimate is appropriate.

## 2. Evidence ledger
Use the accompanying twelve-row source CSV. S01 is a practitioner's 2022 discussion. S07/S08 are Zoom documentation. S10 is a 2024 Otter announcement. S06 is a builder's own promotion. Remaining sources include unread originals and a repost; they are not additional confirmed user cases. Search dates, publication dates and access statuses are separate.

## 3. Findings
S01 describes separate owner/deadline management for note-style minutes and navigation between tickets for ticket-style minutes. It does not establish a current small-team online-meeting failure. S07/S08 describe existing task creation and follow-up functions; S10 describes action extraction and aggregation at its announcement date. These are supply-side evidence, not customer satisfaction data. S06 is not independent demand evidence.

## 4. Interpretation
The claim that no existing product addresses the workflow is unsupported. The unresolved question is whether specific teams still experience failures after trying suitable existing approaches. Lack of evidence is not evidence that a feature or need does not exist. Do not infer market size, prevalence, willingness to pay or saved hours.

## 5. Hypotheses and unknowns
Possible handoff or update problems are hypotheses. Confirm actual team size, last failed task, tools tried, account eligibility, who confirmed the owner/deadline, and what happened when a deadline changed. The retrieved evidence does not combine all those conditions in one verified case. Final decision: inconclusive; investigate before claiming validated demand.

## 6. Next interviews and acceptance
Ask participants to walk through their last meeting and the resulting task list, with appropriate consent and redaction. Ask what failed, how it was repaired, and what worked without AI. Compare meeting statements, recorded owners/deadlines and later updates. A useful report retains counterevidence and unknowns. Every decisive claim needs a source ID and a limitation; never count two copies of one post as two cases.

## Sources / 出典 / Источники

- S01: https://blog.jj1lfc.dev/posts/mtg-memo/
- S06: https://dev.to/mininglamp/we-stopped-taking-meeting-notes-heres-what-the-loop-from-meeting-to-delivered-work-actually-2ioi
- S07: https://support.zoom.com/hc/en/article?id=zm_kb&sysparm_article=KB0078289
- S08: https://support.zoom.com/hc/en/article?id=zm_kb&sysparm_article=KB0083682
- S10: https://otter.ai/blog/otter-ai-new-feature-my-action-items