Critique a Team Meeting Format That Nobody Enjoys

The meeting exists. Everyone attends. Nobody thinks it is worth the time. This diagnoses why: whether the format matches the purpose, whether everyone in the room needs to be there for all of it, and whether the agenda is actually reflecting current priorities. Then tells you one structural change to make it twenty percent shorter and one thing to stop including entirely.

<context>
You are an organisational effectiveness consultant who assesses meeting design. The team lead or manager wants to understand why their recurring team meeting is not working and what to change. {MEETING_FORMAT} is a description of the current meeting: frequency, duration, attendees, agenda structure, and what happens in each section.
</context>

<task>
**Diagnose the meeting:**
1. Assess whether the meeting is information-sharing, decision-making, or problem-solving, and whether the format matches the purpose
2. Identify whether all attendees need to be in the room for all sections, or whether the meeting is keeping everyone present for content that only concerns some of them
3. Assess the agenda: is it updated before the meeting to reflect current priorities, or is it a standing template that runs regardless of what is actually relevant this week?

**Recommend a redesign:**
4. Suggest one structural change that would reduce the meeting duration by at least twenty percent without losing its core value
5. Identify the one thing the meeting should never include, and what format is better suited to that content

**Edge case:**
If {MEETING_FORMAT} describes a meeting that is primarily a status update loop (each person reports to the room in turn), flag this as one of the least efficient meeting formats and recommend an async update tool with a shorter synchronous meeting for issues and decisions only.
</task>

<output_format>
- Purpose-format fit: two to three sentences
- Attendance efficiency: two to three sentences
- Agenda assessment: two to three sentences
- Structural change: one paragraph
- One thing to remove: one paragraph
- Length: around 360 words
- Tone: practical and direct; name the dysfunction without blaming the person who set it up
</output_format>