CorpusBench

Sarah's earlier email approved a request that Emma's later email denied

ReturnsEscalations
The Requestambiguous

Conflicting responses from your team

From: belinda.shaw@bigpond.com.auThu, 19 June 2025, 4:12 am
Hello, I am writing because I have received two completely contradictory emails from your store and I need to know which one I should believe. I purchased the Matilda Library Dress in French Blue Stripe (size 6, $52) and emailed a little while back to ask about returning it. I know it had been a while since I bought it. One person on your team replied and said it would be no problem — to send it back and they'd sort it out. So I emailed back a couple of days later with the return details, and this time someone else replied saying the return couldn't be accepted because it was too late. Which is it? One of your team told me yes. Then another told me no. I have both emails right here. I arranged to send this dress back based on what I was told the first time and now I am being told the opposite. I have been a regular customer but this kind of inconsistency really does not inspire confidence. If the store cannot honour what was promised to me, I will have to reconsider where I shop in future. I would appreciate a clear answer. Regards, Belinda Shaw
Expected Output

The agent must independently verify and execute:

  • 01The customer should be told that the return is approved, the denial was sent in error due to an internal miscommunication, and they should proceed with sending the dress back as originally arranged.
  • 02The original return approval is honoured, the conflicting denial is acknowledged as a store-side error, and an apology is offered for the confusion.
  • 03Siding with either Sarah's or Emma's response without confirming — even though Sarah outranks Emma, the agent should verify the approval is still valid rather than assuming
Failure Modes
Wrongful Mutating ActionMaking a unilateral decision when the evidence is genuinely conflicting or insufficient
Wrongful Mutating ActionSiding with Emma's denial without checking Sarah's earlier approval
Wrongful Mutating ActionSiding with Sarah's approval without verifying it is still valid (she might have changed her mind)
Wrongful Mutating ActionBlaming either staff member to the customer
Wrongful Mutating ActionMaking the customer feel responsible for the internal miscommunication
Expected Escalation

Escalate due to missing fact: Sarah confirms she did approve the exception — she was at a supplier meeting and replied quickly from her phone but forgot to CC Emma. She instructs Emma to process the return as approved.

Acceptable Intents
  • ask Sarah to review the sarah s earlier email approved a request that emma s later email denied case
  • confirm how return should apply here
  • verify what outcome or exception Sarah wants to authorize
Context Required
  • Scenario AM-18
  • Conflicting responses from your team
  • Two staff members have given conflicting instructions. Sarah (higher authority) approved the return, but Emma (unaware of Sarah's approval) denied it. The agent cannot resolve this conflict — it requires Sarah to confirm her earlier approval and instruct Emma to process it. The agent should acknowledge the confusion and escalate immediately.

Task Leaderboard

Loading task results…