Thank you for publishing the task prompts so quickly — that was exactly what we needed.

While validating `tasks.jsonl` against the IFC models in `BIM-Edit/BIM-Edit`, we found that **7 of the 216 `target.guids` do not exist in either the input or the ground-truth model** (209/216 = 96.8% resolve). Since the README states that `guids` is used to filter candidate matches during scoring, these tasks may not score correctly regardless of what the agent produces.

This PR fixes those 7 entries plus 4 prompt-level issues. After the change, **216/216 `target.guids` resolve (100%)** and no GUID violates the 22-character `IfcGloballyUniqueId` length. Task order, task IDs and the key structure of every record are unchanged; 10 records differ.

## 1. `target.guids` that do not exist (7 records)

### 1a. Extra 5-character prefix (3 records)

`1pUd$18rZd98AjEd9pV6_jMu$XT` is 27 characters. The trailing 22 characters, `18rZd98AjEd9pV6_jMu$XT`, **do exist** in both `9d81a20e025d.ifc` and `9d81a20e025d-update-ground-truth.ifc`; the leading-22 variant does not. So the value appears to have picked up a spurious `1pUd$` prefix.

| Task | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| `WAL-UPD-DIR-R-002` | `1pUd$18rZd98AjEd9pV6_jMu$XT` | `18rZd98AjEd9pV6_jMu$XT` |
| `WAL-UPD-SPA-R-002` | same | same |
| `WAL-UPD-TOP-R-002` | same | same |

The prompt of `WAL-UPD-DIR-R-002` also contains the 27-character ID, so that task currently asks the agent to rotate a wall by an ID that is not in the model. The prompt is corrected accordingly. `-SPA-` and `-TOP-` reference the target indirectly with valid GUIDs, so only their metadata changes.

### 1b. Counter overrun (4 records)

These GUIDs look like the result of incrementing a string past the last value that actually exists. Note that `z9` → `z10` also grows to 23 characters, breaking the 22-character `IfcGloballyUniqueId` length.

The replacement was recovered from the input↔ground-truth delta — the same fallback the README already prescribes for `create` tasks. In each case the delta contains **exactly one removed element of the declared `entity_type`**:

| Task | Before | After (only removed element of that type) | Model pair |
|---|---|---|---|
| `WIN-DEL-SPA-A-002` | `00Q96FYDLC7A$JCmG1v0z7` | `00Q96FYDLC7A$JCmG1v0z6` | `06_input.ifc` → `06_gt.ifc` |
| `WIN-DEL-TOP-A-002` | `00Q96FYDLC7A$JCmG1v0z8` | `00Q96FYDLC7A$JCmG1v0z6` | same |
| `DOR-DEL-SPA-A-002` | `2th65gsmv1afVKLdYW9kz10` | `2th65gsmv1afVKLdYW9kz9` | `21_input.ifc` → `21_gt.ifc` |
| `DOR-DEL-TOP-A-002` | `2th65gsmv1afVKLdYW9kz11` | `2th65gsmv1afVKLdYW9kz9` | same |

For `WIN-DEL-*-A-002` the delta removes 14 entities, exactly one of which is an `IFCWINDOW`. For `DOR-DEL-*-A-002` it removes 12, exactly one of which is an `IFCDOOR`. The `-SPA-` and `-TOP-` variants of each pair share the same input/ground-truth models, so they legitimately share a target.

The prompts of all four describe the target indirectly and use valid reference GUIDs, so the prompts are left untouched.

## 2. Prompt-level issues (4 records)

These change benchmark content rather than metadata, so please review them separately — we are happy to drop this section if you would rather make the edits yourself.

| Task | Issue | Change |
|---|---|---|
| `COL-DEL-TOP-A-001` | The prompt has no verb: it reads `the column that is in storey … and connected to the column …`, so it never states what to do. | prepend `Delete ` |
| `WIN-CRE-DIR-A-001` | A window task that says "door" twice (`between the door and the opening`, `assign the door and the opening`), and a missing space that fuses a GUID with the next word: `…the room 2UsXAbj6n0fwEWqdkVuHvhand assign…` | `door` → `window` (2×); insert the missing space |
| `WIN-DEL-TOP-R-001` | Typo `Delet the window …` | `Delet` → `Delete` |
| `WAL-UPD-DIR-R-002` | Contains the 27-character ID from 1a | use the 22-character GUID |

## How this was checked

All 324 tasks were resolved against the models in `BIM-Edit/BIM-Edit`, mapping `data/artificial/*` → `simple/*` and `data/realistic/*` → `complex/*`. GUIDs were collected from the first argument of every IFC entity instance. Before: 209/216 resolve, 5 GUIDs are not 22 characters. After: 216/216 resolve, 0 length violations.

## Two unrelated notes

- `complex/1c98aa6c7ea5-create-input.ifc.ifc` has a doubled extension; `tasks.jsonl` refers to it as `1c98aa6c7ea5-create-input.ifc`. That is the only file whose name does not line up.
- Appendix F.5 says every reported score can be verified from cached per-task evaluation reports in `runs/`, but `BIM-Edit-runs` currently contains only the edited IFC outputs for two of the seven models, with no evaluation reports. Are the evaluator and the reports something you plan to publish? Being able to reproduce the reported numbers from the released outputs would help a lot.