Our project notes contain plenty of sentences like “we could drop the migration” and “let’s revisit that next week.” I want Claude to produce a decision log, but those statements must not become approved changes just because they sound actionable.

The awkward cases are decisions spread across several meetings: someone proposes a change, another person objects, and a later note says “proceed” without clearly naming what was approved.

What I need from the log

• The decision, if one was actually recorded.
• The person or group that approved it, when stated.
• A supporting excerpt and the meeting date.
• Unresolved proposals kept separate from confirmed decisions.

Has anyone used Claude for decision tracking across meeting notes? Would you extract candidates from each meeting first, then reconcile them, or ask it to review the whole collection together?

I would rather see “approval unclear” than a tidy but misleading list. How do you test whether the model is preserving that uncertainty rather than quietly resolving it?