input: Text: Professor B: I think for two years we were two months, uh, away from being done. PhD A: And what was that, Morgan? What project? Professor B: Uh, the, uh, TORRENT chip. PhD A: Oh. Professor B: Yeah. We were two <unk>disfmarker<unk> we were <unk>disfmarker<unk> PhD C: Yeah. Professor B: Uh, uh, we went through it <unk>disfmarker<unk> Jim and I went through old emails at one point and <unk>disfmarker<unk> and for two years there was this thing saying, yeah, we're <unk>disfmarker<unk> we're two months away from being done. It was very <unk>disfmarker<unk> very believable schedules, too. I mean, we went through and <unk>disfmarker<unk> with the schedules <unk>disfmarker<unk> and we <unk>disfmarker<unk> PhD A: It was true for two years. Professor B: Yeah. Oh, yeah. It was very true. PhD A: So, should we just do the same kind of deal where we <unk>pause<unk> go around and do, uh, status report <unk>pause<unk> kind of things? OK. And I guess when Sunil gets here he can do his last or something. So. Professor B: Yeah. So we <unk>pause<unk> probably should wait for him to come before we do his. PhD C: Mm - hmm. PhD A: OK. That's a good idea. Professor B: Yeah. Grad F: OK. Professor B: Yeah. PhD A: Any objection? Do y OK, M Professor B: All in favor PhD A: Do you want to start, Morgan? Do you have anything, or <unk>disfmarker<unk>? Professor B: Uh, I don't do anything. I <unk>disfmarker<unk> No, I mean,
  Question: Summarize the discussion on TORRENT schedule and intermediate categorization
  Answer:
output: The professor told the team that the TORRENT chip schedule kept getting pushed. Then, Grad F talked about his proposal, in which he was done with the section on intermediate categories. Including features from intermediate categories was a potential way of reducing error.