Clariox · Meeting notes to action items
Turn meeting notes into action items.
Paste the notes you actually took — fragments, abbreviations, half sentences. Clariox returns every commitment as a task with an owner and a due date, the decisions in the exact words they were said, and the questions nobody answered.
A transcript is a record. A task list is work.
Meeting assistants have largely solved capture. You can get an accurate transcript of any call, and a summary of what was discussed, without doing anything. That is genuinely useful — and it is not the problem most client-service teams have.
The problem is that a summary still needs a human to read it and decide what it obliges anyone to do. Somebody has to sit with a page of prose, work out which sentences were commitments rather than context, decide who owns each one, invent a date, and type it into a project tool. That step is where things get dropped — usually on a Friday, usually by whoever is busiest.
Clariox does that step. It takes the messy input and returns the obligations.
What comes back
Every item in the output has the same shape, because a task without these fields is not actionable:
- The action, written as an instruction rather than a paraphrase of the conversation
- An owner — a named person, marked as internal or client-side
- A due date, derived from what was said or from the deadline it depends on
- A flag, where something is blocking, repeated, or contradicts something else
Alongside the tasks you get two things note-takers rarely separate out: a decision log quoting the exact wording used, and a list of open questions the notes did not answer.
The decision log matters more than it sounds. Six weeks later, the argument is never about what was decided in spirit — it is about the words. Keeping the phrasing intact is the difference between a recap and evidence.
What it does with the messy parts
Real notes are ambiguous, and the useful behaviour is refusing to paper over it.
Nobody was named
The task is extracted and marked unassigned. It is not handed to whoever seems likely. A wrongly assigned task looks handled and therefore never gets chased — that is worse than an obvious gap.
Two dates contradict each other
Both are surfaced and the item becomes a decision to make, not a date to plan against. “Before the 14th” and “maybe the 12th” are not the same commitment.
Something was written with a question mark
Uncertainty in the notes stays uncertainty in the output. If you wrote “Ines?”, the output says the name is unconfirmed rather than quietly promoting it to fact.
Worked example — 40 minutes of notes from a status call
status w/ Ruth — weekly - analytics still not firing on checkout. she thinks since the last deploy. WE need to check, not them - Ruth wants the Q4 roadmap "in some form" before her board thing. didn't say when the board thing is (?) - copy for the pricing page: approved EXCEPT the guarantee wording, legal wants "up to" not "always" - she asked again about the accessibility audit. we said end of month last time and didn't do it - new person joining their side in Aug, Tomas, will own content. intro call needed - (she sounded annoyed about the reporting delay)
- Diagnose checkout analytics failure, starting from the last deploy
- Deliver Q4 roadmap in draft form for Ruth’s board meeting
- Change guarantee wording to “up to” per legal, then re-submit pricing copy
- Accessibility audit — commitment missed once already, re-commit with a real date
- Schedule intro call with Tomas, incoming content owner at Northgate
- Address the reporting delay directly before the next weekly
Decision
Pricing copy is approved apart from the guarantee wording, which becomes “up to”.
Open — the notes don’t answer these
When is Ruth’s board meeting? The roadmap deadline depends on it.
Was the accessibility audit ever formally re-scheduled after the first miss?
Notice what the notes never said
“(she sounded annoyed about the reporting delay)” is the sort of aside that never becomes a task. It is a feeling, not an instruction, so it stays in the notebook and resurfaces two months later as a renewal conversation.
It leaves this output as an owned item with a date, because in client-service work the relationship problems are the ones worth catching early — they are cheaper to fix in July than in October.
Equally, the roadmap item does not get an invented deadline. The notes never captured when Ruth’s board meeting is, so the output says the date is unknown and makes finding out the task.
Questions
Turning notes into tasks
How is this different from an AI note-taker?
A note-taker returns a transcript and a summary — a record of what was said. Clariox returns what has to happen next: each commitment as a task with a named owner and a due date, decisions in their exact wording, and the items it could not resolve. If you already run a note-taker, its summary is a perfectly good input to Clariox. That is a common setup.
Do my notes have to be tidy?
No. Fragments, abbreviations, half sentences and typos are the normal input, not the edge case. Clariox is built for notes taken during a call rather than written up neatly afterwards — if you had time to write them up neatly, you would not need this.
What happens when the notes don’t say who owns something?
The task is still extracted, but marked unassigned rather than handed to a plausible-looking person. Guessing is worse than flagging: a wrongly assigned task looks handled and never gets chased.
Can it handle a call transcript as well as notes?
Yes. Transcripts, pasted notes, forwarded email threads and Slack exports all work. Longer input generally produces a better result, because more context means fewer guesses.
Send us one set of real notes.
We’ll send back the tasks, owners, dates and decisions Clariox produces from them — usually within one working day. No demo call to get started.