My coworker changes the decision in the recap email

We leave the meeting having agreed to Option A. Twenty minutes later, my coworker sends a recap that describes Option B as the decision.

The first time, I assumed I had misunderstood. I replied, “I had A in my notes—can we confirm?” He answered that B was the practical interpretation of the discussion. Nobody else responded, and B became the plan.

The second time, I paid closer attention. Three people explicitly supported delaying a feature until testing was complete. My coworker argued for releasing it sooner, but the project lead closed the conversation by saying we would wait. His recap said, “Team aligned on a limited release pending final checks.” That was his proposal with softer words.

Again, the email won.

He is excellent at writing fast summaries. Before most people have reopened their inboxes, his version of the meeting is already organized into decisions and actions. The speed is useful. It also gives him unusual power over what the meeting becomes.

I have started replying with precise corrections. “For accuracy, the decision at 2:46 was to wait for the full test result. Please update the action list.” He says my responses are overly literal and that projects need momentum. A manager privately told me to choose my battles because everyone understands that recaps are not transcripts.

But action lists are not casual memories. People who missed the meeting use them. A month later, nobody searches the recording; they search the email. If the recap turns a rejected idea into an agreed plan, the written record is not supporting the decision. It is replacing it.

I do not want to create a second competing recap after every call. I also do not want to spend my week prosecuting sentence-level differences. The process needs a checkpoint before the interpretation hardens.

My suggestion is to record decisions live in a shared document. Before the meeting ends, the facilitator reads the decision and owner aloud. The recap can add context, but it cannot quietly change the line everyone confirmed.

My coworker says that will slow meetings down. It might add two minutes. We are already spending far more time undoing work that began from a disputed summary.

Would you push for a shared decision log, ask the project lead to own recaps, or continue correcting only the material changes? How do you respond when someone uses polished documentation to reopen decisions without admitting they are reopening them?