Decide whether a recurring meeting should exist

Help me put a recurring meeting on trial. The meeting: {{name, frequency, length, attendees and their roles}}. Its stated purpose: {{what it is for}}. What actually happened in the last three of them: {{paste notes or transcripts}}. What it costs: {{attendees x length x frequency}}.

Give me:
1. WHAT IT ACTUALLY DOES - classify each of the last three meetings as decision-making, unblocking, status reporting, or social, with the evidence line that proves it.
2. THE VERDICT - one of: KEEP AS IS, SHORTEN, MAKE IT ASYNC, CUT ATTENDEES (name them), MERGE INTO another meeting, or KILL. One paragraph of reasoning, and name what breaks if you are wrong.
3. THE REPLACEMENT - if it goes async or shrinks, the exact artefact that replaces it: who writes it, when, and its 4 headings.
4. THE AGENDA - if it survives, a fixed agenda with a time box per item and a named owner, plus the one question that must be answered or the meeting was wasted.
5. THE MESSAGE - under 90 words, to attendees, framing this as a trial with a review date. No apology, no hedging.

Do not recommend killing a meeting whose real value is trust between people who never otherwise talk - say so if you see that.