ReConvene | Meeting Orchestration

Inspiration

We interviewed an executive assistant whose organization uses Outlook Calendar. Scheduling an executive meeting still requires a surprising amount of manual coordination: asking the executive for two or three possible time slots, contacting every participant by phone or LINE, following up with people who have not replied, and finally creating the invitation. If an urgent executive commitment appears, much of that work starts again.

The deeper insight was that calendar availability is not consent. A calendar may look free even when someone forgot to record a commitment, needs travel time, or simply cannot attend. At the same time, an assistant should not need to see the title or details of a CEO's private appointment to know that a proposed meeting is no longer safe.

We created ReConvene as a privacy-conscious coordination layer above existing calendars—one that reduces repetitive negotiation while preserving human authority and participant consent.

What it does

ReConvene orchestrates a high-stakes meeting from the original request through confirmation and repair:

The executive assistant describes the meeting in natural language.
A GPT-5.6 Structured Outputs integration converts the request into a typed brief containing the objective, duration, deadline, priority, must-attend people, required roles, meeting mode, and delegation rules.
The executive explicitly approves which free slots may be offered.
Participants confirm one or more workable slots and whether they can attend onsite or online.
A deterministic policy engine rejects ineligible options and ranks valid Candidate Plans against the deadline, required people, role coverage, attendance modes, consent, and authorized delegates.
An authorized person confirms the selected plan.
If a new private executive conflict appears, ReConvene sees only that the interval is busy—not the event title, attendees, location, or reason.
The meeting is marked At Risk, and the system proposes the next safe plan before the deadline.
Affected participants reconfirm their own attendance, and the executive gives final approval before the meeting is repaired.

Our Golden Demo follows three synthetic personas: Emma Brooks, Executive Assistant; Olivia Carter, CEO; and Marcus Reed, Head of Operations. It demonstrates that Emma can coordinate the process, but cannot consent for Marcus or approve a critical change for Olivia.

How we built it

ReConvene is a Next.js 16, React 19, and TypeScript application deployed on Vercel.

Organizer language
        ↓
GPT-5.6 typed meeting brief
        ↓
Deterministic ranking and repair engine
        ↓
Human consent and approval workflow
        ↓
Supabase-synchronized lifecycle
        ↓
Simulated Outlook integration boundary

The GPT-5.6 integration has one bounded responsibility: interpreting organizer-authored language and returning a schema-valid MeetingBrief through Structured Outputs. The model does not rank slots, infer consent, authorize delegates, expose private event details, approve a critical meeting, or write directly to a calendar. Those decisions belong to deterministic code or authorized people.

The public hackathon deployment uses a schema-valid deterministic fallback so the complete demo remains reliable without placing a billable OpenAI API key behind an unrestricted anonymous endpoint.

Our TypeScript policy engine evaluates final deadlines, must-attend participants, required organizational roles, quorum, onsite and online consent, Hybrid policy, preferences, authorized delegates, and disruption. It checks hard constraints before calculating a score and explains why each Candidate Plan is eligible.

Supabase synchronizes the multi-persona repair lifecycle so Emma's, Marcus's, and Olivia's screens reflect the same workflow state. The public demo stores only short-lived, non-sensitive lifecycle data—not meeting or calendar content. Our production-shaped schema also includes tenant isolation, participant-owned consent, approvals, busy-only intervals, audit events, explicit privileges, and Row Level Security.

The application is architected for future Microsoft Graph free/busy reads, change-notification webhooks, and audited Outlook write-back. For this hackathon build, Outlook reads, writes, notifications, and conflict injection are clearly simulated.

Codex was our engineering collaborator throughout the project. It helped us turn an executive-assistant interview and product brainstorm into acceptance criteria, implement the role-aware interface and deterministic policy engine, diagnose cross-persona synchronization, design and review Supabase security policies, verify the complete production workflow, and prepare deployment, documentation, and demo materials. Human judgment remained responsible for the product problem, privacy rules, and final decisions.

Challenges we ran into

Availability is not consent

Our first instinct was to use connected calendars as the answer. User feedback showed that a free interval may be incomplete or incorrect. We therefore use calendar availability only as a conflict signal and keep meeting-specific confirmation as a separate human action.

Authority changes throughout the workflow

An executive assistant can coordinate a meeting but cannot approve for the CEO or reconfirm for another participant. Representing these boundaries required an explicit lifecycle instead of a single booked flag.

Repair is harder than initial scheduling

When a critical meeting becomes unsafe, repeatedly shifting it is not acceptable. A repair must remain inside the final deadline, preserve required people and roles, explain trade-offs, and request fresh authorization from the correct people.

Privacy without losing usefulness

ReConvene needs to know that Olivia is busy, but Emma does not need to know why. Designing the workflow around busy-only evidence allowed us to coordinate the repair without exposing an event title, attendees, location, or reason.

A safe public multi-role demo

Judges need a reliable shared-state demonstration, but an anonymous application should not expose production meeting tables. We created a separate private, expiring demo state accessed through narrowly scoped database functions.

Reliable external integrations

Calendar and AI services can fail during a short demonstration. We separated the deterministic Golden Demo from optional live adapters so ranking and repair remain reproducible while every simulated boundary is described honestly.

Accomplishments that we're proud of

A complete, resettable workflow across three organizational roles.
Explicit separation between calendar availability and participant consent.
An explainable engine supporting deadlines, must-attend people, required roles, Hybrid attendance, and authorized delegates.
A private executive conflict represented only as busy.
A repair flow that waits for Marcus's reconfirmation and Olivia's final approval.
Supabase synchronization without storing meeting or calendar content in the public demo state.
Participant-owned consent, Row Level Security, tenant constraints, and no anonymous access to production-shaped application tables.
A clear boundary between what GPT-5.6 interprets, what deterministic code computes, and what humans authorize.
A production deployment whose complete reset-to-repair workflow was verified across all three personas.

What we learned

Scheduling important meetings is not primarily a calendar-grid problem. The difficult parts are consent, authority, deadlines, organizational role coverage, and recovery when circumstances change.

We also learned that privacy can strengthen the product rather than limit it. Busy-only data gives the assistant enough information to act without granting unnecessary access to private event details.

Finally, generative AI and deterministic decision logic work best together. GPT-5.6 is valuable for translating ambiguous human language into structured policy. Deterministic code is better for eligibility, scoring, deadlines, and explainability. People remain responsible for decisions involving consent and organizational authority.

What's next for ReConvene | Meeting Orchestration

Implement Microsoft Entra OAuth and Microsoft Graph getSchedule with least-privilege free/busy access.
Add validated Graph change-notification webhooks and idempotent Outlook writes.
Add organization SSO, directory synchronization, and configurable authority policies.
Store provider credentials in a server-side secret vault with rotation and revocation.
Protect live GPT-5.6 requests with authentication, rate limiting, strict validation, monitoring, and budget controls.
Deliver consent and repair notifications through Teams, Outlook email, and Slack.
Expand from executive meetings to organization-wide cross-functional scheduling.
Measure coordination time, response latency, rescheduling rounds, repair success, and user trust during pilot deployments.