GRANSKA
Logga inSkapa konto
Alla testfall

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

licence-citizenship-flawed-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-flawed-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-73.

Dokumentet motorn fick

Exakt den text motorn fick, rad för rad.

  1. Licence entry LI-73
  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.

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.

Facit

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

The decision names no officer who made it, which offends the supplied rule exactly once.

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

Förväntade fynd

  • BristUtelämnandeFynd renewal-without-deciding-officer

    The entry states the renewal decision and names no officer who made it.

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

Förbjudna fynd

Fel svar, nedskrivna i förväg.

  • StyrkaFynd renewal-praised-as-attributed

    Crediting the decision for naming its officer when it names none.

    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-04
    • BristUtelämnandeRegel A

      Ska förankras i The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

  • Överens med facitGemini, 4 oktober 2026Punkt i läsarens underlag item-16
    • BristUtelämnandeRegel A

      Ska förankras i The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

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
884e10bed2b48f3b95805f9cf3a56d228b9f76268c465fddbb7b2bd6448572a5
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
    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    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 document for all statements, decisions, and administrative entries. The document contains a licence entry (LI-73) for applicant Ms T. Brennholt, recording an application to renew a breakwater fishing permit and an outcome stating that 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Traced the decision statement under 'Renewal outcome'. The text records the grant of the renewal ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') but does not identify or name the officer who made the decision. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated the text against the provided legal framework. Under 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, placing this duty on the author of the record. The document states a renewal decision but completely omits the officer's name. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Because a decision is stated but lacks the required identification of the deciding officer, this constitutes an omission under the STATED_CLAIM evidence type.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The licence entry states a decision renewing the fishing permit for one season but fails to name the officer who made that decision, as required by Entry Practice Schedule, part S, 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 S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

    Körning 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record containing Licence entry LI-73. It lists an applicant (Ms T. Brennholt), a renewal request (permit to fish from the breakwater), and an outcome stating that the fishing permit was renewed for one season. 2. TRACE: The decision entry 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' is stated directly by the author under the heading 'Renewal outcome'. 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 records a decision to renew the permit but omits the name of the deciding officer. This constitutes an omission on a stated claim (STATED_CLAIM). 4. SYNTHESIZE: Record one flaw regarding the failure to name the deciding officer for the licence decision, citing L1. No strengths or norm conflicts are present.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The record states a licence decision renewing the fishing permit but omits the name of the officer who made the decision, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, 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 S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record containing a licence entry ('Licence entry LI-73'). It details the applicant ('Ms T. Brennholt, a citizen of Delvoria'), the renewal requested ('The applicant asked to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater.'), and the renewal outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.'). 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit for one season is stated under 'Renewal outcome'. However, the document nowhere mentions the officer who made this decision. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (id="L1"), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record has stated the decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') but omitted the mandatory identification of the deciding officer. Because the document states the decision but omits required details (the identity of the deciding officer), this is an omission with omission_evidence 'STATED_CLAIM'. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate one flaw under L1 for failure to name the deciding officer. There are no other rules in the framework, no norm conflicts, and no procedural strengths grounded in the provided framework.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Failure to identify deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The licence entry states a decision renewing the fishing permit for one season but fails to name the officer who made that decision, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, 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 S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

    Körning 4

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record containing a licence entry ('Licence entry LI-73') with sections 'Licence holder', 'Renewal sought', and 'Renewal outcome'. In 'Renewal outcome', a decision is recorded: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement back through the text reveals that no officer or decision-maker is identified anywhere in the entry. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (id: L1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record has stated a renewal decision but omitted the required officer's name. Because a claim/decision is stated but lacks the mandatory officer identification, this constitutes an omission under the STATED_CLAIM criterion. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate a single flaw for the omission of the decision-making officer's name under 'Renewal outcome', anchored to L1.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Missing officer identification
    Förklaring
    The licence entry states a decision to renew the fishing permit but omits the name of the officer who made that decision, contrary to the mandatory requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, 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 S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

    Körning 5

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record containing 'Licence entry LI-73' with applicant details, renewal sought, and a 'Renewal outcome' stating: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit is stated under the heading 'Renewal outcome'. However, no officer name is mentioned anywhere in the record as responsible for or making the renewal decision. 3. EVALUATE: Under Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (id: L1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision, placing this duty on the author of the record. The document records a decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') but omits the required identity of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: This constitutes an omission of a required element of a stated decision (STATED_CLAIM), anchored on binding law L1.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The licence entry states the renewal decision but fails to name the officer who made the decision, contrary to the mandatory requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, 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 S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

  2. Schemalagd nattkörning,

    Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.
    TestfallKörning 1
    Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskaren
    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    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-73 regarding Ms T. Brennholt's application to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater. Under 'Renewal outcome', the entry states the decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: The decision is recorded in the passive voice without identifying the person or official who made the determination. 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 entry records a decision but omits the required name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: An omission flaw under 'Renewal outcome' where the decision is stated ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') without naming the deciding officer, in violation of L1.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The licence entry states a renewal decision but does not name the officer who made that decision, contrary to the requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, 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 S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

  3. Schemalagd nattkörning,

    Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.
    TestfallKörning 1
    Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskaren
    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    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: Identify all causal claims, factual conclusions, and diagnostic statements in the document. The text records a licence entry (LI-73) for applicant Ms T. Brennholt, noting renewal sought for a permit to fish from the breakwater, and concludes under 'Renewal outcome' with the decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.', the record states the decision outcome but does not identify or name any officer responsible for making that decision. 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, with the duty resting on the author of the record. The document is classified as a record and contains a licence entry stating a renewal decision without naming the deciding officer. Because the document states the decision measure but omits the required identity of the person responsible, this constitutes an omission under the STATED_CLAIM evidence type. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Record one flaw under L1 for failure to name the deciding officer associated with the renewal decision.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The record states a decision to renew the fishing permit for one season but fails to name the officer who made that decision, in violation of Entry Practice Schedule, part S, 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 S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

  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
    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    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 statement in the record under the heading 'Renewal outcome': 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement shows that no officer or decision-maker is identified anywhere in the entry or surrounding text. 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 author of the record has stated a decision but omitted the required officer attribution. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulated the flaw as an omission with stated claim evidence under L1.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The licence entry records a renewal decision but fails to name the officer who made the decision, contrary to the requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, 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 S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

    Körning 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Scanned the document 'Licence entry LI-73'. The document contains an applicant record for Ms T. Brennholt, a description of the renewal sought for a breakwater fishing permit, and an outcome stating that the fishing permit was renewed for one season under the heading 'Renewal outcome'. 2. TRACE: Traced the decision statement 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' across the text. No officer or decision-maker is identified anywhere in the entry. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated against L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), which mandates that in a record, every licence entry stating a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record failed to name the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record contains an omission regarding a stated decision claim (STATED_CLAIM).

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The licence entry records a decision renewing the fishing permit for one season but fails to name the officer who made that decision, contrary to the mandatory requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, 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 S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a licence record (LI-73) stating the applicant details, renewal sought, and a renewal outcome decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit is stated under 'Renewal outcome', but no deciding officer is identified in the entry. 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 author of the record failed to provide the name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate a single flaw for the omission of the officer's name in connection with the stated decision.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Missing decision-maker identity
    Förklaring
    The record states a licence renewal decision but fails to name the officer who made that decision, contrary to the requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, 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 S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

  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
    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    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-73. Under the heading 'Renewal outcome', the text states: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' This statement constitutes a recorded decision regarding a licence renewal application. 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision through the record, there is no mention anywhere in the document of the officer who made the renewal decision. 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 author of the record has omitted the identity of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record contains a specific decision entry but omits the mandatory identification of the officer who made that decision, representing a direct non-compliance with L1.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of decision-maker
    Förklaring
    The licence entry records a decision renewing the fishing permit but omits the name of the officer who made that decision, contrary to the requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.
    Citat
    The fishing permit was renewed for one season.
    Var
    Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome
    Utelämnande
    Ja
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

    Körning 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record containing licence entry LI-73 for applicant Ms T. Brennholt. Under the heading 'Renewal outcome', the text states: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' This represents an administrative decision on the renewal application. 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement in the record, the text does not identify or name any official or officer responsible for deciding to renew the fishing permit. 3. EVALUATE: According to the binding law Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (id: L1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record bears this duty. The document records a decision but fails to name the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: A procedural flaw is identified under 'Renewal outcome' where the decision is stated without naming the officer who made it, violating Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1).

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Missing officer identification
    Förklaring
    The licence entry states the decision to renew the fishing permit but fails to name the officer who made the decision, as required by Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.
    Citat
    The fishing permit was renewed for one season.
    Var
    Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome
    Utelämnande
    Ja
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Scan the record 'Licence entry LI-73' for procedural entries, decisions, and claims. The text states: under 'Renewal sought', the applicant asked to renew a permit; under 'Renewal outcome', 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' shows that a decision was made regarding the licence renewal, but no officer or official is identified as having made this decision. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluate against the legal framework. Binding law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1) specifies 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 author of the record. The document records a decision but omits the name of the decision-making officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record violates Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 because it fails to state the name of the officer who decided to renew the fishing permit. As the document contains the stated decision but omits the required identity of the officer responsible, this constitutes an omission flaw with the decision quote attached.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of decision-maker identity
    Förklaring
    The record states a licence renewal decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') but omits the name of the officer who made that decision, contrary to the requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.
    Citat
    The fishing permit was renewed for one season.
    Var
    Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome
    Utelämnande
    Ja
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

  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
    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    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 a licence entry (LI-73) concerning an applicant (Ms T. Brennholt) seeking renewal of a fishing permit. Under the heading 'Renewal outcome', the document records a decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing this decision statement back through the text, there is no mention of the individual or officer who made the determination. 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, placing this duty on the author of the record. The document records a decision but omits the identity/name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate a flaw identifying the omission of the deciding officer's name in violation of L1.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The licence entry states a decision to renew the fishing permit for one season but fails to name the officer who made that decision, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.
    Citat
    The fishing permit was renewed for one season.
    Var
    Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome
    Utelämnande
    Ja
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

    Körning 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Scanning the document reveals a record titled 'Licence entry LI-73'. Under the heading 'Renewal outcome', the text states a decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision shows that no deciding official or officer is identified or named anywhere in the document. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record has the duty to include this. The document records the renewal decision but fails to name the officer who made it. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate the finding as an omission flaw quoting the decision statement under the heading 'Renewal outcome'.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The licence entry records a decision renewing the fishing permit but fails to name the officer who made that decision, as required by Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.
    Citat
    The fishing permit was renewed for one season.
    Var
    Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome
    Utelämnande
    Ja
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record containing a licence entry (LI-73) with the holder Ms T. Brennholt, renewal sought for a fishing permit, and a renewal outcome stating: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision in 'Renewal outcome', the entry records that the permit was renewed for one season, but contains no mention of any officer or official who made that renewal decision. 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, and this duty rests on the author of the record. The document records a decision but fails to identify the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate a flaw object citing L1 with is_omission=true and exact_quote of the decision statement.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The licence entry records a decision renewing the fishing permit for one season but fails to state the name of the officer who made the decision, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.
    Citat
    The fishing permit was renewed for one season.
    Var
    Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcomeSida: Page 1
    Utelämnande
    Ja
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

  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
    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    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 a licence entry ('Licence entry LI-73'). It states under 'Renewal outcome' that 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision regarding the renewal outcome reveals that the text states the permit was renewed for one season, but nowhere in the entry is the identity or name of the decision-making officer stated. 3. EVALUATE: According to the Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (law L1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record failed to name the officer who made the decision. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate the finding as an omission flaw where the stated decision fails to identify the deciding officer as required by Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Unidentified decision-maker
    Förklaring
    The licence entry states a decision renewing the fishing permit for one season but fails to name the officer who made that decision, contrary to the mandatory requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.
    Citat
    The fishing permit was renewed for one season.
    Var
    Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome
    Utelämnande
    Ja
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

    Körning 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Scanned the document 'Licence entry LI-73'. The text contains the applicant details ('Applicant: Ms T. Brennholt, a citizen of Delvoria'), the request ('The applicant asked to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater'), and the outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season'). 2. TRACE: Traced the decision statement 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season' under the heading 'Renewal outcome'. The document does not indicate which officer made the decision. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated against Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), which stipulates that in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The document is classified as a record and records a licence renewal decision, but omits the name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record violates Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 due to the omission of the officer's name in connection with the stated decision.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The licence entry states a decision renewing the fishing permit for one season but fails to name the officer who made that decision, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.
    Citat
    The fishing permit was renewed for one season.
    Var
    Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcomeSida: Throughout
    Utelämnande
    Ja
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record containing licence entry LI-73, which notes an applicant (Ms T. Brennholt), the renewal sought, and records a decision under the heading 'Renewal outcome': 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision claim, the record states that the permit was renewed for one season, but nowhere in the record is an officer or decision-maker identified. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluating against the binding legal framework, Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (id: L1) explicitly 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 states a renewal decision without identifying the officer who made it. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate the finding as an omission of required officer identification under L1.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Missing officer identification
    Förklaring
    The licence entry records a decision renewing the fishing permit for one season but fails to name the officer who made that decision, in violation of Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1, which requires every licence entry stating a decision to name the decision-making officer.
    Citat
    The fishing permit was renewed for one season.
    Var
    Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcomeSida: Throughout
    Utelämnande
    Ja
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade

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
    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: rätt textställe men fel regel

    Inga fynd utöver facit

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    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-73' containing details on the licence holder (Ms T. Brennholt), the renewal sought (permit to fish from the breakwater), and the renewal outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.'). 2. TRACE: The entry records a closure decision under the section 'Renewal outcome' where the permit renewal was granted for one season. 3. EVALUATE: Under Entry Practice Schedule, part T, issue 1 (L1), every closure entry in a record must state where the original papers behind it are stored. The closure entry states the renewal outcome but does not mention or specify where the original papers behind it are stored. 4. SYNTHESIZE: This constitutes an omission on a stated claim (the closure entry). The flaw is documented under 'Renewal outcome' with reference to L1.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of storage location
    Förklaring
    The closure entry specifies the renewal outcome but fails to state where the original papers behind it are stored, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part T, issue 1.
    Citat
    The fishing permit was renewed for one season.
    Var
    Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcomeSida: Page 1
    Utelämnande
    Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part T, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    0 styrkor rapporterade