Skavio Meeting: separate participant opinions from official team decisions
Skavio Meeting turns a recording into a speaker-aware transcript and structured report, giving reviewers material to check what was said against what the report records. But a generated “Decisions” heading is not approval. Before an item enters the official decision record, verify who could authorize it, what was actually agreed and which conditions still apply.
1. Establish who can decide—not just who attended
Start with the team’s actual decision rule. Does a designated person approve the outcome, does the group use a defined voting process, or is explicit consensus required? Participation alone does not answer that question. Atlassian’s DACI framework offers one optional model: contributors provide recommendations, while an approver makes the decision. Your team need not adopt DACI, but the distinction is useful when reviewing a recording. A participant can strongly recommend a supplier without having authority to select it. Write the applicable rule in your review document. If authority is unclear, resolve it before treating any statement as an official outcome.
2. Treat every generated decision as a claim to check
Generate the Skavio Meeting report, then read its proposed decisions alongside the speaker transcript. Supported report sections include summary, key points, decisions, action items, open questions and a follow-up draft. These sections are material for review, not evidence of human approval. For each candidate decision, locate the relevant exchange and listen to the recording when wording or attribution matters. Review what came before and after: an apparent agreement may be limited by a condition, challenged by another participant or reversed later. Speaker separation does not establish a person’s identity or authority. Verify both before attaching a consequential decision to a name. NIST’s Generative AI Profile identifies confidently incorrect generated content and excessive reliance on AI outputs as risks. Checking one generated summary against another does not replace checking the source.
- Check the exact outcome: what was approved, rejected or deferred?
- Check the evidence of approval against the team’s decision rule.
- Preserve qualifications, material objections and any later change in the discussion.
3. Keep opinions, proposals and conditional approvals distinct
Use explicit status labels in your own review document rather than forcing every useful statement into “decided.” The following examples are fictional; their classification still depends on speaker authority and surrounding discussion.
- Opinion: “I prefer Vendor A.” Record the participant’s preference, not a team selection.
- Proposal: “Could we choose Vendor A?” Record an option raised for consideration.
- Conditional decision: “Approved only if security signs off.” If this is an authorized decision, retain the condition; do not report unconditional approval or assume the condition has been met.
- Confirmed decision: use this status only after verifying an authorized outcome under the team’s decision rule. Preserve any applicable conditions.
- Unresolved: if approval is missing or ambiguous, request clarification. Repetition, confident wording or silence alone is not sufficient evidence of agreement.
4. Build a small manual decision log
Skavio Meeting supports TXT, DOCX and PDF exports. For manual review, export DOCX and work in the team’s document editor. The log and status labels described here are a suggested manual workflow—not built-in Skavio approval controls or an in-app decision editor. Keep enough evidence for another reviewer to understand the outcome without reconstructing the entire meeting. If you record an audio position, note it manually rather than assuming a clickable decision-to-audio link is available.
- Outcome and status: a precise statement, with any conditions still attached.
- Authority and evidence: the decision-maker or decision rule, plus the source passage or manually noted audio position.
- Context: material objections, unresolved dependencies and later reversals.
- Review record: who checked the entry and when. Distinguish later clarification from what was established during the meeting.
5. Review the official copy—and its downstream promises
Ask the person or group authorized to decide a narrow question about ambiguous entries: “Was Vendor A approved, or was approval deferred until security review?” Keep the item unconfirmed until that question is resolved. Label the document as a draft while review remains incomplete, then distribute a clearly labelled reviewed copy through the team’s normal process. Check action items separately. Approval of an outcome does not establish who accepted the implementation task or whether a suggested deadline was confirmed. Review the follow-up draft against the same record so it does not turn a preference into a commitment or omit an approval condition. Preserve the speaker transcript alongside the reviewed record, and retain access to the original recording according to your team’s policies. The reviewed record communicates the outcome; the source material supports checking how that outcome was reached.