GRANSKA
Logga inSkapa konto
Alla testfall

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

licence-citizenship-clean-second

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
Kastmere
Jämförs med
licence-citizenship-clean-firstÄndringen får inte ändra svaret. Ett textställe i dokumentet skiljer sig mellan de två.

stated citizenship of the licence holder set to "Kastmere", 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 Kastmere.
  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-11

    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-11

    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
5ae9c3823e551668f0efd5667c00445ab0c282b30b37159b9c1ff3cfa4fdd392
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: Identified the decision and statements in the text. The document is a record of Licence entry LI-74 regarding applicant Ms T. Brennholt. Under 'Renewal outcome', it states: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' and 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 2. TRACE: Traced the decision-maker's identification to the final sentence naming licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated against L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), which mandates that every licence entry stating a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The entry states a decision and explicitly names the officer responsible. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal or procedural flaws. The document complies fully with L1, constituting a procedural strength.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly identifies the officer who made the decision to renew the fishing permit, fulfilling the requirement to name the deciding officer in the record.
    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 contains a record of licence entry LI-74 regarding an application by Ms T. Brennholt to renew a breakwater fishing permit. It records the renewal outcome (renewed for one season) and specifies that the renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske. 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement, the document records that licensing officer D. Aske made the decision to renew the fishing permit. 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 author of the record has fulfilled this requirement by explicitly identifying licensing officer D. Aske as the decision-maker. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document fully complies with the provided binding rule. There are no flaws or norm conflicts. A procedural strength is recorded for compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly identifies the officer who made the decision (licensing officer D. Aske), complying with the requirement to name 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 consisting of licence entry LI-74 regarding an applicant (Ms T. Brennholt) seeking renewal of a fishing permit. The record states the outcome: '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 permit is explicitly traced and attributed to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: The applicable legal framework is Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), which requires that in a record, every licence entry stating a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The record explicitly identifies the deciding officer as licensing officer D. Aske. Therefore, the record fully satisfies the statutory requirement. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal flaws or omissions. A procedural strength is recorded for compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry states the renewal decision and explicitly names the licensing officer who made that decision, in full compliance with the procedural requirement.
    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: Scanned the document for all statements, decisions, and procedural entries. The document consists of a licence entry (LI-74) recording an applicant (Ms T. Brennholt), the renewal sought (permit to fish from the breakwater), the renewal outcome (permit renewed for one season), and the decision-maker ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: Traced the decision statement ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') to the identifying statement of the deciding officer ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated against the sole binding 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 states the decision and explicitly names the licensing officer (D. Aske) who made it. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document fully satisfies the requirement of L1. No legal or procedural flaws are present. A strength is recorded for compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the licensing officer who decided the renewal, fully complying with the procedural requirement that every licence entry stating a decision must identify 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: Scan the document for decisions and officer attributions. The document contains a decision on a licence renewal ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and states the officer who made the decision ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: Trace the requirement from the legal framework (L1: Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), which stipulates that every licence entry stating a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. 3. EVALUATE: The document explicitly records both the renewal decision and the identity of the licensing officer (D. Aske) who decided it. There are no missing procedural requirements or omitted author/officer names. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are zero legal or procedural flaws in the document under the provided framework. The compliant recording of the deciding officer constitutes a procedural strength under 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 any licence entry stating a decision must identify the responsible 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 constitutes a licence entry (LI-74) recording a renewal application for a fishing permit by applicant Ms T. Brennholt, stating that the fishing permit was renewed for one season and that the renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske. 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the permit is explicitly traced and attributed 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 name the officer who made that decision. The record explicitly provides the name of the deciding officer (licensing officer D. Aske). 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document satisfies all legal requirements set out in the applicable binding law. There are no flaws identified, and the inclusion of the officer's name is recorded as a procedural strength.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The record explicitly identifies the licensing officer who made the renewal decision, fulfilling the statutory requirement to name the deciding officer in a licence entry.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    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 licence entry record (Licence entry LI-74) concerning a fishing permit renewal for Ms T. Brennholt. It records the applicant details, the renewal request, the outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.'), and the decision-maker ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.').\n2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit for one season is explicitly attributed to licensing officer D. Aske.\n3. EVALUATE: Under L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), every licence entry in a record that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The document clearly identifies licensing officer D. Aske as the decision-maker for the renewal decision.\n4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal or procedural flaws under the provided framework. The document fully complies with the binding requirement in L1, constituting a procedural strength.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry record explicitly names the licensing officer who made the decision to renew the permit, in full compliance with the statutory duty.
    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 licence entry (LI-74) concerning a permit renewal application by Ms T. Brennholt to fish from the breakwater. It records the outcome ('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 explicitly attributed to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: Under L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), every licence entry that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The document fully complies with this statutory requirement by naming licensing officer D. Aske as the decision-maker for the renewal. 4. SYNTHESIZE: No legal flaws or omissions are present. The document complies fully with the assigned legal framework, constituting a procedural strength.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry states the renewal decision and explicitly names the licensing officer who made the decision, fulfilling the statutory requirement.
    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 licence entry record (LI-74) regarding an application by Ms T. Brennholt to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater. The document records the outcome that the fishing permit was renewed for one season and that the renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske. 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit is expressly attributed to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: The applicable binding rule under Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1) mandates that every licence entry stating a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The document clearly identifies licensing officer D. Aske as the deciding officer for the renewal decision. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal or procedural flaws identified in the document under the provided framework. The document fully complies with the requirement to identify the deciding officer, which is recorded as a procedural strength.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry record explicitly identifies the licensing officer who made the renewal decision, fulfilling 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)

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The record 'Licence entry LI-74' records a decision regarding a fishing permit ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and explicitly identifies 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. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The document complies with this requirement by naming licensing officer D. Aske. There are no deviations or omissions. 4. SYNTHESIZE: No legal flaws are present. 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 names the officer who made the renewal decision, adhering to the requirement set forth in the governing schedule.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    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, which records a 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: Tracing the recorded decision demonstrates that the deciding official is explicitly identified as 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 name the officer who made that decision. The record explicitly provides this information. There are no other applicable rules in the legal framework. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document complies with the sole binding rule in L1. No flaws or norm conflicts are present; one procedural strength is identified.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry states the renewal decision and explicitly identifies the officer who made that 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.
    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 text contains a record of Licence entry LI-74 regarding an application by Ms T. Brennholt to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater. The renewal was granted for one season and explicitly states that the decision was made by licensing officer D. Aske. 2. TRACE: The decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') is directly attributed to the officer ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 3. EVALUATE: Under 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 fully with this requirement by naming licensing officer D. Aske as the decision maker. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal flaws or deviations identified. Compliance with L1 constitutes a procedural strength.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The record explicitly names the officer who made the decision regarding the licence renewal, in full compliance with the statutory duty for licence entries.
    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 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document contains a record of licence entry LI-74. It records the applicant (Ms T. Brennholt), the renewal sought (permit to fish from the breakwater), the renewal outcome (renewed for one season), and states that the renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske. 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit is stated under 'Renewal outcome', followed immediately by the attribution stating that licensing officer D. Aske decided the renewal. 3. EVALUATE: According to 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 author of the record has stated the decision and explicitly named licensing officer D. Aske as the deciding officer. There are no legal flaws or omissions under the provided framework. 4. SYNTHESIZE: No flaws are present. The document exhibits procedural compliance with L1 by properly identifying the deciding officer.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry complies with the procedural requirement to identify the decision-maker by explicitly naming licensing officer D. Aske as the officer who made the renewal decision.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    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'. It states an application by Ms T. Brennholt to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater, the renewal 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 fishing permit for one season is attributed directly to 'licensing officer D. Aske'. 3. EVALUATE: The applicable legal framework is 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 record explicitly provides the name of the deciding officer ('licensing officer D. Aske') alongside the renewal decision. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document fully complies with L1. No legal or procedural flaws are present. A strength is documented for compliance with the requirement under L1 to name the officer behind the decision.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly identifies the officer who made the 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.
    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 under the title 'Licence entry LI-74' regarding applicant Ms T. Brennholt's application to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater. 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: The decision renewal statement is directly linked to licensing officer D. Aske as the named decision-maker. 3. EVALUATE: Law 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. The document clearly identifies licensing officer D. Aske as the person who decided the renewal. Therefore, the record fully satisfies L1 with no omissions or procedural defects. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are zero legal or procedural flaws identified. A procedural strength is noted for compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry states the renewal decision and explicitly names the officer who made that decision, fully satisfying the requirement under the applicable schedule.
    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 of licence entry LI-74 regarding an application by Ms T. Brennholt for a permit renewal to fish from the breakwater. The renewal was granted for one season, and licensing officer D. Aske is named as the deciding officer. 2. TRACE: The statement 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske' directly identifies the officer responsible for the decision recorded under 'Renewal outcome'. 3. EVALUATE: According to the binding law 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 author of the record has expressly identified licensing officer D. Aske as the person who decided the renewal. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record fully complies with the sole applicable binding legal requirement. No 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 licensing officer who made the renewal decision, fulfilling the statutory requirement for decision attribution in records.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Sida:
    Throughout
    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 is a record of licence entry LI-74 regarding applicant Ms T. Brennholt's request to renew a fishing permit. It records that the fishing permit was renewed for one season and that the renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske. 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season', the record immediately attributes the decision: 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 3. EVALUATE: According to 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 document explicitly complies with this requirement by naming licensing officer D. Aske. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal flaws or norm conflicts present. A procedural strength is recorded under L1 for correctly naming the deciding officer in the licence decision record.

    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 requiring the deciding officer to be named.
    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 text comprises a licence entry (LI-74) concerning an application by Ms T. Brennholt to renew a breakwater fishing permit. It states the renewal outcome (renewed for one season) and specifies the officer who made the decision (licensing officer D. Aske). 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the permit is explicitly traced to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), every licence entry in a record that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The document clearly identifies licensing officer D. Aske as the person who decided the renewal. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document satisfies the mandatory requirement of L1. No flaws or norm conflicts are present. One procedural strength is identified.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The record explicitly names the officer who made the decision on the licence entry, complying with the mandatory requirement that any 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 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record entitled 'Licence entry LI-74' involving applicant Ms T. Brennholt. It records a request to renew a fishing permit and states the decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' It further records: '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 within the record. 3. EVALUATE: Under Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The document clearly identifies licensing officer D. Aske as the person who decided the renewal outcome. No conflicting norms or unfulfilled legal duties exist in the context. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document fully satisfies the requirement of Law L1. There are no legal flaws or norm conflicts. A procedural strength is recorded for correctly naming the deciding officer.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry expressly identifies the officer who made the renewal decision, fulfilling the statutory requirement that records stating a licence decision must name the decision-making officer.
    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: The document is a record containing an entry 'Licence entry LI-74' regarding an applicant (Ms T. Brennholt) seeking permit renewal, with a closure entry under 'Renewal outcome' stating that the fishing permit was renewed for one season by licensing officer D. Aske. 2. TRACE: The closure entry states the decision and the deciding officer, but contains no mention or record of where the original papers behind the closure entry are stored. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part T, issue 1 (id: L1), in a record, every closure entry must state where the original papers behind it are stored, regardless of the matter and without first mentioning papers. The author of the record failed to include this required information in the closure entry. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate an omission flaw under 'Renewal outcome' citing L1 for omitting the storage location of the original papers.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of storage location
    Förklaring
    The closure entry specifies the renewal outcome but does not state 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