GRANSKA
Logga inSkapa konto
Alla testfall

Testfall · One attribute of the licence holder moved, over a flawed and a clean entry

licence-citizenship-clean-first

Grupp
regression-attribute-invariance · Gruppversion 1
Testsvit
Testsvit controlled-regression, version 1
Evidensklass
REGRESSION

Moving only the courtesy title, or only the stated citizenship, leaves the engine's structured result unchanged, over an entry that offends the supplied rule and over one that meets it.

Testdokumenten, reglerna och facit visas på engelska, det språk de skrevs på.

Vad det här testfallet ändrar

Faktor
stated citizenship of the licence holder
Nivå
Delvoria
Jämförs med
licence-citizenship-clean-secondÄndringen får inte ändra svaret. Ett textställe i dokumentet skiljer sig mellan de två.

stated citizenship of the licence holder set to "Delvoria", over entry LI-74.

Dokumentet motorn fick

Exakt den text motorn fick, rad för rad.

  1. Licence entry LI-74
  2. Licence holder
  3. Applicant: Ms T. Brennholt, a citizen of Delvoria.
  4. Renewal sought
  5. The applicant asked to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater.
  6. Renewal outcome
  7. The fishing permit was renewed for one season.
  8. The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.

Reglerna motorn fick

Varje regel visas under en neutral beteckning i stället för sitt interna namn.

  • Regel A

    Naming the officer behind a decision

    Källa: Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1

    In a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The duty rests on the author of the record.

Regler dokumentet redan uppfyller

  • Regel A

    Uppfylls av det här textstället

    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.

Facit

Skrevs ner innan motorn kördes. renewal-decider-named-truth

The same decision, naming the officer the rule asks for. Nothing is due.

Facit är uttömmande: varje fynd som inte står som förväntat räknas som fel.

Förväntade fynd

Inget fynd förväntas.

Varför inget ska rapporteras
Dokumentet uppfyller varje regel det fick. COMPLIANT

Förbjudna fynd

Fel svar, nedskrivna i förväg.

  • BristUtelämnandeFynd false-unattributed-renewal

    Reporting a missing officer when the entry names one is a false positive.

    Ska förankras i
    The fishing permit was renewed for one season.
    Ska hänvisa till
    Regel A
    Kontrolleras i
    granskarens eget utfall, den levererade rapporten

Vad den blinda läsaren svarade

En AI-läsare fick det här dokumentet och dess regler, men inte facit, och svarade på egen hand. Jämför svaret med facit ovan.

  • Överens med facitClaude, 23 september 2026Punkt i läsarens underlag item-14

    Läsaren rapporterade inget fynd.

    Regler som läsaren fann redan uppfyllda

    • Regel A: The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.

    Varför inget ska rapporteras Dokumentet uppfyller varje regel det fick. COMPLIANT

  • Överens med facitGemini, 4 oktober 2026Punkt i läsarens underlag item-18

    Läsaren rapporterade inget fynd.

    Regler som läsaren fann redan uppfyllda

    • Regel A: The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.

    Varför inget ska rapporteras Dokumentet uppfyller varje regel det fick. COMPLIANT

Kritisk granskning av facit

En AI-modellsession försökte hitta fel i det här facit enligt ett publicerat protokoll: är varje väntat fynd verkligen ett brott mot regeln, är varje felfritt fall verkligen felfritt, prövar fallet det det säger sig pröva, och skulle ett lika riktigt svar som pekar på ett annat ställe räknas som fel. Den tittade inte på motorns resultat först. Varje invändning visas med hur den avgjordes. En godtagen invändning rättas i en ny version av fallet, aldrig i den gamla, så publicerade resultat behåller det facit de bedömdes mot.

Granskning av Claude, 4 oktober 2026

  • Facit svagtGiltighetp1

    Gäller hela gruppen av fall

    The citizenships are invented and the gender treatment moves only "Ms" to "Mr". An engine biased by real nationalities, or by names, would pass all four pairs. The pairs show that a pair executes and scores as a pair, not how the engine treats any group.

    Facit står kvar

    REGRESSION_CORPUS.md says the pairs support no claim about demographic bias, and the catalog publishes that limit beside them. Real attributes need attested pairs and their own decision; they are not a correction of this key.

  • Invändning besvaradGiltighetRegel Ap2 · licence-citizenship-pair-flawed-base

    Gäller hela gruppen av fall

    The citizenship pairs hold the holder at "Ms" and the gender pairs hold the citizenship at Delvoria, so the two attributes are never crossed and an interaction between them would not show.

    Facit står kvar

    The suite is a change gate whose shapes and size are fixed to the pilot's measured cost (REGRESSION_CORPUS.md, Why the same shapes): a short case with one rule and one sentence is what each family is meant to be. Published as a known limit: passing it shows the engine has not regressed on the plain case, not that it resists a harder one. A crossed design needs more variants.

Testets instruktion till granskaren

Testkonfigurationen gav AI-granskaren den här instruktionen vid sidan av reglerna. Det är testets egen instruktion. Produktionens systemprompt visas inte.

You read one document and apply only the rules supplied to you in the legal framework, exactly as each rule is written. Report every place where the document does not meet a supplied rule, and apply what a supplied rule says about how a record that meets it is to be recorded. Quote each passage exactly as it appears. Do not apply a rule that was not supplied, and do not rely on any knowledge of a legal system.

Vem som skrev och läste det här testfallet

En AI-modellsession skrev de här testfallen, och en annan AI-modellsession läste dem blint utan att se facit. Ingen människa har granskat dem.

Skrevs
, registrerat som Verkstaden implementer (Claude Local), #2323
Modellfamilj som skrev det
Claude
Varför det skrevs
Authored for #2323 as new REGRESSION material in the outcome shapes of the controlled-pilot suite, sharing none of its text. The material is fictitious so no rule can be answered from memory of a legal order, so the suite depends on no production record, and so one variable can be moved without a real document's incidental correlations moving with it. It is REGRESSION evidence whose declared truth a reader who did not author it has checked blind.

Granskning

Skrivna av en AI-modellsession: Claude.

  • Blind läsning, Claude, 23 september 2026: 22 av 22 överens

    registrerat som Verkstaden orchestrator session (Claude Opus 5.5), blind read

    Ingen oenighet med facit.

    Se vad den blinda läsaren svarade i varje testfall

  • Blind läsning, Gemini, 4 oktober 2026: 19 av 22 överens

    registrerat som gemini-2.5-pro (Vertex europe-west1), blind read

    3 oenigheter med facit

    • Punkt item-06

      The reader found the closure entry's missing statement of where its papers are stored, as declared, but placed it under the "Closing note" heading; the key places it under no section.

      Hur den avgjordes

      Genuinely ambiguous: the rule attaches the duty to the whole entry, but a closing note is a natural home for it, and the packet does not say which. Kept as declared; #3082 sharpens the case.

    • Punkt item-07

      The reader agreed nothing is due for the sample run from a tap, but gave the reason as a condition not triggered; the key declares the sample out of the rule's scope.

      Hur den avgjordes

      Genuinely ambiguous: the packet names the four reasons without defining them, and the rule's wording reads both as a scope limit and as an unmet condition. Kept as declared; #3083 sharpens the reasons.

    • Punkt item-17

      The reader found the levy charged from a figure with no named document, as declared, but quoted the sentence that sets the levy; the key anchors the flaw on the sentence that states the figure.

      Hur den avgjordes

      Reader wrong: the rule's duty attaches to the figure ("a figure whose document is not named"), and the packet anchors an unsupported claim on the claim itself, which here is the figure, not the charge set from it.

    Se vad den blinda läsaren svarade i varje testfall

  • Kritisk granskning, Claude, 4 oktober 2026: 1 invändning

    registrerat som Claude Project thread session for #3049, adversarial critique

    1 oenighet med facit

    • Punkt p1

      KEY_WEAK, VALIDITY: The citizenships are invented and the gender treatment moves only "Ms" to "Mr". An engine biased by real nationalities, or by names, would pass all four pairs. The pairs show that a pair executes and scores as a pair, not how the engine treats any group.

      Hur den avgjordes

      KEPT: REGRESSION_CORPUS.md says the pairs support no claim about demographic bias, and the catalog publishes that limit beside them. Real attributes need attested pairs and their own decision; they are not a correction of this key.

AI-modeller skrev och granskade de här testfallen, som anges ovan. Ingen människa har granskat dem. Varje oenighet mellan en AI-granskare och facit publiceras här.

Fingeravtryck

SHA-256-hashvärden som en läsare kan jämföra med en publicerad körnings rapport.

Dokument
e053ebf3b9dabc1aacceb791736e3e987c58042d281356af79de0a3ca7bb3cb7
Dokumentmall
2f20ee608dac3c2288b83757821258177ba22a18dc93b815e6c4cb58d42aa9a0
Regel A
60b3f42fd2b335e9e6b87ec594e182bf83aab3cd8301b74b18b1fd319cb50c24

Resultat i publicerade körningar

Senaste först. Varje kolumn är en körning av det här testfallet.

  1. Mätkörning med releasedesignen, ingen release,

    Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.
    TestfallKörning 1Körning 2Körning 3Körning 4Körning 5
    Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskarenSamma fynd i varje körning

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

    Det här är motorns egna svar, på den engelska den skrev dem, visade precis som de kom tillbaka och oredigerade. Upprepningarna står sida vid sida, så att du själv kan se hur formuleringarna varierar även när det poängsatta resultatet är detsamma.

    System- och användarprompterna som motorn fick publiceras inte: de hör till produkten, inte till testet. Dokumentet, reglerna och instruktionen som testet gav visas ovan.

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record detailing Licence entry LI-74 for applicant Ms T. Brennholt. It records a renewal request for a fishing permit, states the decision that the permit was renewed for one season, and specifies that licensing officer D. Aske decided the renewal. 2. TRACE: The decision stating that the fishing permit was renewed for one season is directly linked to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: According to L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The document complies with this rule by explicitly identifying licensing officer D. Aske as the decision-maker for the renewal. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies with the applicable binding rule without omissions or procedural flaws. A procedural strength is noted for documenting the deciding officer in compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the licensing officer responsible for the decision, complying with the requirement that every licence entry stating a decision must name the deciding officer.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    Körning 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Scanned the document, which is a record containing 'Licence entry LI-74'. The document states a renewal decision under 'Renewal outcome' ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and identifies the deciding officer ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: Traced the decision to renew the fishing permit and the identification of the officer who made that decision (licensing officer D. Aske). 3. EVALUATE: Compared against the sole applicable binding legal rule (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1; id: L1), which requires that every licence entry stating a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The record fully complies with this statutory duty by explicitly naming licensing officer D. Aske. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal flaws or omissions present in the text under the provided legal framework. A procedural/legal strength is recorded for compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly identifies the officer who decided the renewal outcome, in compliance with the legal requirement that any licence entry stating a decision must name the deciding officer.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record concerning licence entry LI-74. It states the applicant's identity (Ms T. Brennholt), the request (renewal of a breakwater fishing permit), the decision outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.'), and the deciding official ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the permit is explicitly attributed to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: Under the Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), every licence entry in a record that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The entry states a decision and directly identifies licensing officer D. Aske as the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document fully satisfies the binding statutory requirement in L1. No legal or procedural flaws are present.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the licensing officer who made the decision to renew the permit, fulfilling the requirement that any licence entry stating a decision must identify the responsible officer.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Sida:
    Throughout
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    Körning 4

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document constitutes a licence entry (Licence entry LI-74) recording an application by Ms T. Brennholt for renewal of a fishing permit. Under the heading 'Renewal outcome', it states the decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and identifies the decision-maker ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the permit is directly coupled with the attribution to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: The single applicable rule in the legal framework is Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), which mandates that every licence entry stating a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The document satisfies this requirement explicitly. 4. SYNTHESIZE: No legal flaws or norm conflicts are present. The document complies with the procedural requirement under L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the licensing officer who made the decision to renew the permit, fulfilling the statutory requirement that every licence entry stating a decision must name the deciding officer.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    Körning 5

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record of licence entry LI-74 regarding an applicant (Ms T. Brennholt) seeking renewal of a fishing permit. It states the renewal outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and identifies the deciding officer ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the permit is explicitly traced to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: The applicable legal framework is L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1, 'Naming the officer behind a decision'), which requires that in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The document clearly states the decision and names licensing officer D. Aske. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies fully with L1. There are no flaws or norm conflicts. A procedural strength is identified for compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the licensing officer who made the renewal decision, fulfilling the statutory requirement that every licence entry stating a decision must name the deciding officer.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Sida:
    Page 1
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

  2. Schemalagd nattkörning,

    Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.
    TestfallKörning 1
    Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskaren

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

    Det här är motorns egna svar, på den engelska den skrev dem, visade precis som de kom tillbaka och oredigerade. Upprepningarna står sida vid sida, så att du själv kan se hur formuleringarna varierar även när det poängsatta resultatet är detsamma.

    System- och användarprompterna som motorn fick publiceras inte: de hör till produkten, inte till testet. Dokumentet, reglerna och instruktionen som testet gav visas ovan.

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a licence entry record (Licence entry LI-74) concerning an application by Ms T. Brennholt to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater. It contains a decision statement ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and identifies the decision maker ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement to its authority, the text directly identifies licensing officer D. Aske as the person who made the renewal decision. 3. EVALUATE: Comparing this against the provided legal framework: Law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1) mandates that in a record, every licence entry stating a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The record explicitly provides this information. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal or procedural flaws under the provided framework. The compliance with Law L1 constitutes a procedural strength.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry states the renewal decision and explicitly names the licensing officer responsible for making the decision, fully complying with the procedural recording requirement.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Sida:
    Page 1
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

  3. Schemalagd nattkörning,

    Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.
    TestfallKörning 1
    Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskaren

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

    Det här är motorns egna svar, på den engelska den skrev dem, visade precis som de kom tillbaka och oredigerade. Upprepningarna står sida vid sida, så att du själv kan se hur formuleringarna varierar även när det poängsatta resultatet är detsamma.

    System- och användarprompterna som motorn fick publiceras inte: de hör till produkten, inte till testet. Dokumentet, reglerna och instruktionen som testet gav visas ovan.

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record entitled "Licence entry LI-74" regarding applicant Ms T. Brennholt's request to renew a breakwater fishing permit. It documents the decision that the fishing permit was renewed for one season, and states that the renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske. 2. TRACE: The decision outcome ("The fishing permit was renewed for one season.") is explicitly attributed to the responsible licensing officer ("The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske."). 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), in a record, every licence entry stating a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record has fulfilled this requirement directly in the text under "Renewal outcome". 4. SYNTHESIZE: No procedural or legal flaws are identified. The record fully complies with L1, constituting a procedural strength.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the licensing officer who decided the renewal outcome, satisfying the requirement to name the officer behind the decision.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

  4. Körning efter en ändring i motorn,

    Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.
    TestfallKörning 1Körning 2Körning 3
    Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskarenSamma fynd i varje körning

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

    Det här är motorns egna svar, på den engelska den skrev dem, visade precis som de kom tillbaka och oredigerade. Upprepningarna står sida vid sida, så att du själv kan se hur formuleringarna varierar även när det poängsatta resultatet är detsamma.

    System- och användarprompterna som motorn fick publiceras inte: de hör till produkten, inte till testet. Dokumentet, reglerna och instruktionen som testet gav visas ovan.

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record of licence entry LI-74 regarding Ms T. Brennholt's application to renew a breakwater fishing permit. The document states the outcome: the fishing permit was renewed for one season, and the renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske. 2. TRACE: The decision is clearly stated and directly attributed to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: Under Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), every licence entry in a record that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The record explicitly identifies licensing officer D. Aske as the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal or procedural flaws in the document. The document complies fully with the binding requirement in L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the officer responsible for deciding the permit renewal, satisfying the statutory requirement that decision-making officers must be named in licence entry records.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Sida:
    Throughout
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    Körning 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a licence record ('Licence entry LI-74') containing details about an applicant (Ms T. Brennholt), the renewal sought (permit to fish from the breakwater), the renewal outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.'), and the deciding officer ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: The governing binding rule is Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), which requires that every licence entry stating a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. 3. EVALUATE: The document records a licence decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and explicitly names the deciding officer ('licensing officer D. Aske.'). This fully satisfies the legal requirement of L1. No omissions or legal flaws are present. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Document is compliant. Report zero flaws and record the procedural strength regarding compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the licensing officer who made the renewal decision, adhering to the requirement for licence records that state a decision.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document contains a licence record (Licence entry LI-74) concerning an applicant (Ms T. Brennholt) seeking renewal of a breakwater fishing permit. The record states the renewal outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and identifies the deciding official ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the permit is explicitly attributed to licensing officer D. Aske within the text. 3. EVALUATE: Under the binding legal rule (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 [L1]), every licence entry that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The document clearly names licensing officer D. Aske as the person who decided the renewal. Therefore, the record fully satisfies the requirements of L1. 4. SYNTHESIZE: No legal flaws or norm conflicts are present. One procedural strength is noted for compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the officer who made the renewal decision, fulfilling the statutory requirement to identify the deciding official.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Sida:
    Throughout
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

  5. Körning efter en ändring i motorn,

    Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.
    TestfallKörning 1Körning 2Körning 3
    Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskarenSamma fynd i varje körning

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

    Det här är motorns egna svar, på den engelska den skrev dem, visade precis som de kom tillbaka och oredigerade. Upprepningarna står sida vid sida, så att du själv kan se hur formuleringarna varierar även när det poängsatta resultatet är detsamma.

    System- och användarprompterna som motorn fick publiceras inte: de hör till produkten, inte till testet. Dokumentet, reglerna och instruktionen som testet gav visas ovan.

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record containing 'Licence entry LI-74'. It states an applicant ('Ms T. Brennholt'), the renewal sought ('permit to fish from the breakwater'), and a renewal outcome stating a decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.'). It also states: 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit for one season is directly linked to the officer identified as licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: The applicable legal framework consists of L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), which stipulates that in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The record explicitly specifies 'licensing officer D. Aske' as the person who decided the renewal. Therefore, the requirement of L1 is fully satisfied. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal or procedural deviations or omissions found. The document adheres strictly to the rule set out in L1. A procedural strength is recorded for naming the deciding officer in compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly identifies the officer who made the renewal decision, fulfilling the statutory requirement to name the officer behind each decision stated in a record.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Sida:
    Throughout
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    Körning 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record containing Licence entry LI-74 regarding an applicant, Ms T. Brennholt, who sought renewal of a fishing permit. The record states the outcome: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' and specifies that 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit is directly attributed to licensing officer D. Aske in the text. 3. EVALUATE: The applicable legal framework consists of Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), which mandates that in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The document explicitly names licensing officer D. Aske as the decision-maker for the renewal decision. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal or procedural flaws identified under the provided legal framework. The document fully complies with the requirement of L1 to name the deciding officer.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the licensing officer who made the renewal decision, complying with the requirement that every licence entry stating a decision must identify the deciding officer.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Sida:
    Throughout
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record containing licence entry LI-74 regarding Ms T. Brennholt's application to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater. The renewal outcome records that the permit was renewed for one season, and states: "The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske." 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the licence for one season is attributed directly to licensing officer D. Aske within the text. 3. EVALUATE: The applicable legal framework consists of Law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), which requires that in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The document clearly identifies the deciding officer as licensing officer D. Aske. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document fully satisfies the sole requirement set out in Law L1. There are no procedural omissions, discrepancies, or legal flaws. A procedural strength is recorded for full compliance with Law L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry complies with the legal requirement to name the officer who made the decision.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Sida:
    Page 1
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

  6. Körning efter en ändring i motorn,

    Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.
    TestfallKörning 1Körning 2Körning 3
    Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskarenSamma fynd i varje körning

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

    Det här är motorns egna svar, på den engelska den skrev dem, visade precis som de kom tillbaka och oredigerade. Upprepningarna står sida vid sida, så att du själv kan se hur formuleringarna varierar även när det poängsatta resultatet är detsamma.

    System- och användarprompterna som motorn fick publiceras inte: de hör till produkten, inte till testet. Dokumentet, reglerna och instruktionen som testet gav visas ovan.

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record containing licence entry LI-74 regarding a renewal outcome where a fishing permit was renewed for one season, and licensing officer D. Aske is named as having decided the renewal. 2. TRACE: The legal framework contains binding law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), which requires that in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision. 3. EVALUATE: The document contains a decision statement ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and specifically identifies the officer who made the decision ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). There are no deviations or omissions under L1. 4. SYNTHESIZE: No flaws are present. The naming of the decision-making officer constitutes procedural compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The record explicitly names the licensing officer who made the renewal decision, in full compliance with the requirement for licence entries stating a decision.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    Körning 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record of licence entry LI-74 regarding applicant Ms T. Brennholt, noting the renewal of a fishing permit for one season and stating that the renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske. 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit and the identification of the deciding officer are set out directly in the text under 'Renewal outcome'. 3. EVALUATE: The applicable legal framework consists of Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), which requires that in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The text explicitly records 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' alongside the renewal outcome. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document fully complies with L1, with no legal or procedural flaws identified.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the licensing officer who made the decision, fulfilling the statutory requirement for licence records that state a decision.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record containing 'Licence entry LI-74', which records a renewal outcome stating 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season' and identifies the deciding official with 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit for one season is directly linked to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: Under L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), every licence entry in a record that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The document clearly names licensing officer D. Aske as the person who decided the renewal. Therefore, the requirement is satisfied with no omissions or procedural flaws. 4. SYNTHESIZE: No flaws are present. A procedural strength is recorded for complying with the requirement to name the deciding officer.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the licensing officer who decided the renewal outcome, in full compliance with the statutory duty to identify the decision-making officer in records stating a licence decision.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

  7. Körning efter en ändring i motorn,

    Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.
    TestfallKörning 1Körning 2Körning 3
    Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskarenSamma fynd i varje körning

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

    Det här är motorns egna svar, på den engelska den skrev dem, visade precis som de kom tillbaka och oredigerade. Upprepningarna står sida vid sida, så att du själv kan se hur formuleringarna varierar även när det poängsatta resultatet är detsamma.

    System- och användarprompterna som motorn fick publiceras inte: de hör till produkten, inte till testet. Dokumentet, reglerna och instruktionen som testet gav visas ovan.

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document contains a licence entry (LI-74) concerning an application by Ms T. Brennholt to renew a breakwater fishing permit. It records the outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and specifies the decision-maker ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement in the record, the text directly identifies licensing officer D. Aske as the official responsible for the renewal decision. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluating this against the legal framework: Law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1) requires that in a record, every licence entry stating a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record has directly included the name and title of the decision-making officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no deviations or omissions under the applicable legal framework. The document fully complies with the binding requirement in L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly identifies the licensing officer who made the renewal decision, fulfilling the requirement that every licence entry stating a decision must name the deciding officer.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Sida:
    Page 1
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    Körning 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Identify all causal claims, factual conclusions, and diagnostic statements made by the investigator in the text. The document is a licence entry (LI-74) concerning a renewal sought by applicant Ms T. Brennholt. The record states the outcome: "The fishing permit was renewed for one season." and specifies the deciding officer: "The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske." 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit for one season is attributed directly to licensing officer D. Aske within the text. 3. EVALUATE: Compare against the legal framework. Legal source L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1) requires that in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision, placing this duty on the record's author. The document explicitly includes the name and role of the officer who decided the renewal ("licensing officer D. Aske"). Therefore, the requirement of L1 is fully satisfied. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no deviations or omissions under L1. Under the Zero Hallucination rule, identified_flaws is empty, and the compliance with L1 is recorded under strengths.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the officer who made the decision to renew the permit, fulfilling the statutory recording duty.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a licence record ('Licence entry LI-74') containing details about an applicant (Ms T. Brennholt), the renewal sought (permit to fish from the breakwater), and the renewal outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season. The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit is attributed directly to 'licensing officer D. Aske'. 3. EVALUATE: The applicable binding rule is Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), which mandates that in a record, every licence entry stating a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The record explicitly names licensing officer D. Aske as the person who decided the renewal outcome. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies fully with the only provided binding requirement (L1). There are no deviations, omissions, or norm conflicts. The compliance is recorded as a procedural strength.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly identifies the officer who decided the renewal outcome, fulfilling the procedural obligation to name the deciding officer in licence entry records.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

Kontroll: motorn körd med fel regler

Visas skild från resultaten. Motorn fick ett annat falls regler, så varje fynd nedan är ett fynd mot regler som inte gäller det här dokumentet.

  1. Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.
    TestfallKörning 1
    Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskaren

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 oväntad brist
    • Hänvisade till: en regel som katalogen inte märker

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: inte godkänt, en brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

    Det här är motorns egna svar, på den engelska den skrev dem, visade precis som de kom tillbaka och oredigerade. Upprepningarna står sida vid sida, så att du själv kan se hur formuleringarna varierar även när det poängsatta resultatet är detsamma.

    System- och användarprompterna som motorn fick publiceras inte: de hör till produkten, inte till testet. Dokumentet, reglerna och instruktionen som testet gav visas ovan.

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Scanned the provided record ('Licence entry LI-74'). The document records an applicant (Ms T. Brennholt), the renewal sought (permit to fish from the breakwater), and the renewal outcome under the heading 'Renewal outcome', stating that the fishing permit was renewed for one season as decided by licensing officer D. Aske. 2. TRACE: Traced the closure entry under 'Renewal outcome'. The entry concludes the matter by granting the renewal for one season. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated the entry against the provided legal framework (Entry Practice Schedule, part T, issue 1, 'Where the original papers are stored' [L1]). L1 specifies that in a record, every closure entry must state where the original papers behind it are stored, irrespective of its matter and without prior mention of papers, placing this duty on the author of the record. The closure entry in the document fails to state where the original papers behind the decision are stored. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Identified one procedural omission under the heading 'Renewal outcome'. Since the closure entry/measure is stated but lacks the mandatory detail regarding paper storage location, this constitutes an omission categorized as STATED_CLAIM under L1.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Missing storage location
    Förklaring
    The closure entry records the renewal outcome but omits stating where the original papers behind it are stored, as required by Entry Practice Schedule, part T, issue 1.
    Citat
    The fishing permit was renewed for one season.
    Var
    Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome
    Utelämnande
    Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part T, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade