Fathom call summary error invented discount approval never mentioned on call

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Delete the invented approval from the summary, add a template rule that commercial approvals may only be written when a matching transcript quote is attached, and regenerate this summary with quotes required for pricing and approval statements. Start with the Fathom summary claiming a discount approval, the full call transcript searched for that claim, and the summary template in use, work on one affected call, record, or run first, and prove the fix there before running the full set. Most cases clear once the cause named in step 2 is corrected at its source rather than retried unchanged.

Fathom call summary error invented discount approval never mentioned on call

Use this when

• You see this exact message or symptom: Fathom call summary error invented discount approval never mentioned on call
• One run, record, call, or object is affected and you can name it
• A retry without changing anything reproduces the same result

Not for this skill when

• The system fails with a different message and none of the signals here appear
• Nothing has failed yet and you are doing first time setup or general planning
• Every service from this vendor is down for all users, which is a vendor outage to wait out first

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure once using the Fathom summary claiming a discount approval, the full call transcript searched for that claim, and the summary template in use, and record the time, the workspace or account, and the one item it names. Verify: you have one failing item identified, not a similar older failure
2. Inspect the transcript for any mention of a discount, an approval, or a percentage, compared line by line with the summary claim. Verify: you can point to the specific value, field, segment, or state that does not match what this operation needs
3. Apply the fix at that source: delete the invented approval from the summary, add a template rule that commercial approvals may only be written when a matching transcript quote is attached, and regenerate this summary with quotes required for pricing and approval statements. Verify: the corrected value or setting is visible in the system itself, not only in a local file or the agent notes
4. Re-run the original operation on the single affected item first. Verify: that one item completes with no trace of the failure described above, and the regenerated summary contains no approval claim and every pricing statement carries a transcript quote
5. Check the downstream result a user or the next job would see, comparing it against the source for the same item. Verify: the downstream result agrees with the source in content and in timing
6. Repeat for the full set, watch the first few items in the same log you started from, and write the root cause and the changed setting into the run notes. Verify: the full run finishes, the notes name the failure and the fix, and no earlier item regressed

Variant phrasings

Fathom call summary error invented discount approval never mentioned on call

The subject-first phrasing of the same failure. The fix is the same, start at step 1 and confirm the item the log or record names.

Tool-first phrasing of this failure

The phrasing searchers use once they know which system raised it. It is the same underlying problem, not a separate bug.

Why does this keep happening after a retry

The repeat-occurrence phrasing. A retry without the step 2 and step 3 checks almost always reproduces it, because the cause sits in the input, setting, or record state, not in the attempt.

Compatibility: Fathom at current versions, with the summary template used for this call

Why it happens

Summarizers fill gaps in a loosely structured call with plausible next steps, and a pricing discussion without a decision can be rewritten as an approval when the template asks for outcomes the call never stated.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_gHKVyxgpSbTxNkVAn59-Fw

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_gHKVyxgpSbTxNkVAn59-Fw

Thread query: Fathom call summary error invented discount approval never mentioned on call

TL;DR: Delete the invented approval from the summary, add a template rule that commercial approvals may only be written when a matching transcript quote is attached, and regenerate this summary with quotes required for pricing and approval statements. Start with the Fathom summary claiming a discount approval, the full call transcript searched for that claim, and the summary template in use, work on one affected call, record, or run first, and prove the fix there before running the full set. Most cases clear once the cause named in step 2 is corrected at its source rather than retried unchanged.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Delete any promised feature claim that has no supporting transcript segment and require a timestamp citation for every commitment statement in the template, because the summary invented a promise that was never discussed and an uncited claim is exactly how that hallucination entered the note. Start with each claim in the summary checked against a transcript timestamp, work on one affected call, record, or run first, and prove the fix there before running the full set. Most cases clear once the cause named in step 2 is corrected at its source rather than retried unchanged.

call summary hallucination error feature promised that was never discussed failure

Use this when

• You see this exact message or symptom: call summary hallucination error feature promised that was never discussed failure
• One run, record, call, or object is affected and you can name it
• A retry without changing anything reproduces the same result

Not for this skill when

• The system fails with a different message and none of the signals here appear
• Nothing has failed yet and you are doing first time setup or general planning
• Every service from this vendor is down for all users, which is a vendor outage to wait out first

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure once using each claim in the summary checked against a transcript timestamp, and record the time, the workspace or account, and the one item it names. Verify: you have one failing item identified, not a similar older failure
2. Inspect every commitment or promise sentence in the summary, its alleged timestamp, and the transcript text at that timestamp. Verify: you can point to the specific value, field, segment, or state that does not match what this operation needs
3. Apply the fix at that source: Delete any promised feature claim that has no supporting transcript segment and require a timestamp citation for every commitment statement in the template, because the summary invented a promise that was never discussed and an uncited claim is exactly how that hallucination entered the note. Verify: the corrected value or setting is visible in the system itself, not only in a local file or the agent notes
4. Re-run the original operation on the single affected item first. Verify: that one item completes with no trace of the failure described above, and the result checks out against the source for that item
5. Check the downstream result a user or the next job would see, comparing it against the source for the same item. Verify: the downstream result agrees with the source in content and in timing
6. Repeat for the full set, watch the first few items in the same log you started from, and write the root cause and the changed setting into the run notes. Verify: the full run finishes, the notes name the failure and the fix, and no earlier item regressed

Variant phrasings

call summary hallucination error feature promised that was never discussed failure

The subject-first phrasing of the same failure. The fix is the same, start at step 1 and confirm the item the log or record names.

Tool-first phrasing of this failure

The phrasing searchers use once they know which system raised it. It is the same underlying problem, not a separate bug.

Why does this keep happening after a retry

The repeat-occurrence phrasing. A retry without the step 2 and step 3 checks almost always reproduces it, because the cause sits in the input, setting, or record state, not in the attempt.

Compatibility: Any LLM based call summarizer with structured CRM templates.

Why it happens

Summarizers fill template sections even when the call never covered the topic, and a roadmap section invites invention. Grounding each claim in a quoted segment turns invention into an obvious empty section instead.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_Y9GyJVZZt33BSzclE1qDCw

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_Y9GyJVZZt33BSzclE1qDCw

Thread query: call summary hallucination error feature promised that was never discussed failure

TL;DR: Delete any promised feature claim that has no supporting transcript segment and require a timestamp citation for every commitment statement in the template, because the summary invented a promise that was never discussed and an uncited claim is exactly how that hallucination entered the note. Start with each claim in the summary checked against a transcript timestamp, work on one affected call, record, or run first, and prove the fix there before running the full set. Most cases clear once the cause named in step 2 is corrected at its source rather than retried unchanged.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Search the call for the incumbent by category language (our current platform, what we use today, renewal with them) and flag the displacement signal with its segment quoted, because the customer described switching away from a competitor without naming them and the tracker that waits for a name missed the whole signal. Start with the transcript for incumbent and current vendor language around the competitors product category, work on one affected call, record, or run first, and prove the fix there before running the full set. Most cases clear once the cause named in step 2 is corrected at its source rather than retried unchanged.

pipeline call summary error competitor displacement signal missed failure

Use this when

• You see this exact message or symptom: pipeline call summary error competitor displacement signal missed failure
• One run, record, call, or object is affected and you can name it
• A retry without changing anything reproduces the same result

Not for this skill when

• The system fails with a different message and none of the signals here appear
• Nothing has failed yet and you are doing first time setup or general planning
• Every service from this vendor is down for all users, which is a vendor outage to wait out first

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure once using the transcript for incumbent and current vendor language around the competitors product category, and record the time, the workspace or account, and the one item it names. Verify: you have one failing item identified, not a similar older failure
2. Inspect segments describing the current tool and contract timing, the competitor list in the tracker, and the renewal date mentioned. Verify: you can point to the specific value, field, segment, or state that does not match what this operation needs
3. Apply the fix at that source: Search the call for the incumbent by category language (our current platform, what we use today, renewal with them) and flag the displacement signal with its segment quoted, because the customer described switching away from a competitor without naming them and the tracker that waits for a name missed the whole signal. Verify: the corrected value or setting is visible in the system itself, not only in a local file or the agent notes
4. Re-run the original operation on the single affected item first. Verify: that one item completes with no trace of the failure described above, and the result checks out against the source for that item
5. Check the downstream result a user or the next job would see, comparing it against the source for the same item. Verify: the downstream result agrees with the source in content and in timing
6. Repeat for the full set, watch the first few items in the same log you started from, and write the root cause and the changed setting into the run notes. Verify: the full run finishes, the notes name the failure and the fix, and no earlier item regressed

Variant phrasings

pipeline call summary error competitor displacement signal missed failure

The subject-first phrasing of the same failure. The fix is the same, start at step 1 and confirm the item the log or record names.

Tool-first phrasing of this failure

The phrasing searchers use once they know which system raised it. It is the same underlying problem, not a separate bug.

Why does this keep happening after a retry

The repeat-occurrence phrasing. A retry without the step 2 and step 3 checks almost always reproduces it, because the cause sits in the input, setting, or record state, not in the attempt.

Compatibility: Pipeline intelligence in Chorus, Gong, Avoma competitor tracking.

Why it happens

Displacement intent is usually about timing and pain, not brand names. A customer deep in a competitor contract negotiation talks about the incumbent constantly while naming it rarely.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstKZJum-u3lxoA5PVUmhxxA

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstKZJum-u3lxoA5PVUmhxxA

Thread query: pipeline call summary error competitor displacement signal missed failure

TL;DR: Search the call for the incumbent by category language (our current platform, what we use today, renewal with them) and flag the displacement signal with its segment quoted, because the customer described switching away from a competitor without naming them and the tracker that waits for a name missed the whole signal. Start with the transcript for incumbent and current vendor language around the competitors product category, work on one affected call, record, or run first, and prove the fix there before running the full set. Most cases clear once the cause named in step 2 is corrected at its