GRANSKA
Logga inSkapa konto
Alla testfall

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

licence-citizenship-flawed-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-flawed-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-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 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.

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-20
    • BristUtelämnandeRegel A

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

  • Överens med facitGemini, 4 oktober 2026Punkt i läsarens underlag item-05
    • 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
bd34e510d196246750117545b9fcb6b4e691cb8df8733b7c01e4994cba1d15c4
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: The document is a record of a licence entry ('Licence entry LI-73') regarding an applicant, Ms T. Brennholt, seeking renewal of a fishing permit. Under 'Renewal outcome', the document states the decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision claim, there is no officer or decision-maker identified 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 also name the officer who made that decision. The duty rests on the author of the record. The document states a renewal decision but fails to name the officer who made it. 4. SYNTHESIZE: This constitutes a stated claim omitting required statutory detail (the identity of the deciding officer), classified as an omission under STATED_CLAIM.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The licence entry records a decision renewing the permit but omits the name of 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 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record entitled 'Licence entry LI-73'. It identifies the applicant (Ms T. Brennholt), the renewal sought ('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 renewal decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') records the decision to renew the fishing permit, but it does not specify or name any officer who made this 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 licence entry clearly states a decision under 'Renewal outcome', but omits the required name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate a single flaw for the omission of the officer's name in the decision statement under 'Renewal outcome', categorized under STATED_CLAIM.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The licence entry states the decision that the fishing permit was renewed 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 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Identified the decision statement in the text: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' under the heading 'Renewal outcome'. 2. TRACE: Traced the origin and details of this decision to determine if the deciding officer is identified anywhere in the document. No officer or decision-maker is named in the entry. 3. EVALUATE: Compared the record entry against Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), which imposes a mandatory duty on the author of a record to name the officer who made the decision in every licence entry stating a decision. The document states a renewal decision but omits the identity of the officer who made it. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulated one legal flaw under L1 for failing to name the deciding officer, categorized as STATED_CLAIM since the decision itself is stated but lacks the required identifying detail.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The licence entry records a renewal decision without naming the officer who made that decision, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1, which requires every licence entry stating a decision in a record to name the deciding officer.
    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 (LI-73) concerning Ms T. Brennholt's application to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater. Under the heading 'Renewal outcome', the entry records the decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: The document records this decision without specifying any decision-maker or naming any officer. 3. EVALUATE: According to the binding law 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 author of the record failed to name the officer who made the renewal decision. 4. SYNTHESIZE: This constitutes an omission with a stated claim (is_omission: true, omission_evidence: 'STATED_CLAIM'), quoting the stated decision from which the officer's identity was omitted. No norm conflicts or legal strengths are present in the context.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of officer identity
    Förklaring
    The licence entry records 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 5

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record titled 'Licence entry LI-73' concerning an applicant named 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: The statement 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' articulates a formal decision on a licence renewal application. However, the record does not identify or state the name of the officer who made this decision. 3. EVALUATE: According to the binding legal rule 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, placing this duty on the record's author. The document states a renewal decision under 'Renewal outcome' but omits the name of the officer responsible for the decision. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate a single flaw finding for the omission of the decision-maker's name on a stated decision claim, categorized under omission of decision-maker identity and anchored on L1.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of decision-maker identity
    Förklaring
    The licence entry states a decision renewing the fishing permit 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

  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: Identified the decision statement under heading 'Renewal outcome': 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Traced the statement to verify if the deciding officer is identified anywhere in the record. The document contains no mention of the officer who made the decision. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), 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: Formulate a flaw noting the omission of the officer's name in connection with the stated renewal decision.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The licence entry states a renewal decision without naming the officer who made that decision, failing to meet the requirement under 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: The document is a record containing licence entry LI-73. It lists the applicant (Ms T. Brennholt), the renewal sought (permit to fish from the breakwater), and the renewal outcome stating that "The fishing permit was renewed for one season." 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit is stated under the heading "Renewal outcome". No officer or decision-maker is named in connection with this 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. The author of the record is subject to this requirement. The record states the decision to renew the permit but omits the identity of the officer who made the decision. 4. SYNTHESIZE: This represents an omission on a stated claim (omission_evidence: STATED_CLAIM), specifically violating Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (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 · 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: The document is a record of licence entry LI-73. Under the heading 'Renewal outcome', it states: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit is recorded, but no officer or official responsible for making the decision is named anywhere in the entry. 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 states a renewal decision without naming the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate a flaw identifying the omission of the deciding officer in the licence renewal outcome decision, referencing binding law L1.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Missing officer attribution
    Förklaring
    The licence entry records a decision renewing the fishing permit for one season 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 · 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 licence record (LI-73) recording an application by Ms T. Brennholt to renew a breakwater fishing permit. Under 'Renewal outcome', it states: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the permit is stated directly, but there is no indication or naming of the officer who made this renewal decision anywhere in the text. 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 author of the record has the duty to include this. The document states a renewal decision but omits the name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: This constitutes an omission of a required detail on a stated decision (STATED_CLAIM). The exact quote is 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' under the heading 'Renewal outcome'.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The licence entry records a decision to renew 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 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record containing licence entry LI-73. It includes details of 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: Under the heading 'Renewal outcome', a substantive decision is stated ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.'). Tracing this entry backward through the text, there is no name or mention of the officer who made the decision. 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, with the duty resting on the author of the record. The document records a renewal decision but omits the identity of the officer responsible for the decision. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulating findings: One flaw is identified under 'Renewal outcome' where the decision is stated without naming the officer, violating Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1). There are no norm conflicts and no procedural strengths to report under the provided legal framework.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The licence entry states a decision to renew the fishing permit but omits the name of 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

  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 a licence entry (LI-73) with sections 'Licence holder', 'Renewal sought', and 'Renewal outcome'. In 'Renewal outcome', the investigator/author records a decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement in the record, no deciding officer or individual responsible for making the renewal decision is identified or named anywhere in the document. 3. EVALUATE: According to the binding law 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, and this duty rests on the author of the record. The document records a renewal decision without stating the name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate a flaw identifying the omission of the deciding officer's name in the licence entry under 'Renewal outcome', citing L1. No other binding rules or interpretive guidelines are present, and no norm conflicts or compliant strengths under the provided rules exist.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Missing decision-maker identity
    Förklaring
    The licence entry records a renewal decision but fails to name the officer who made that decision, violating the requirement that every licence entry stating a decision must name the deciding officer.
    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 entitled 'Licence entry LI-73' containing three sections: 'Licence holder', 'Renewal sought', and 'Renewal outcome'. Under 'Renewal outcome', the entry records the decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement shows that while the renewal outcome is recorded, there is no mention anywhere in the record of the officer who made the decision. 3. EVALUATE: Under the binding law 'Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1' (id: L1), 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 renewal decision but omits the name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record violates L1 due to the omission of the officer's identity who made the renewal decision. This must be reported as an omission flaw tied to the stated decision quote.

    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 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
    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: Scanned the document for all factual statements, administrative actions, and recorded decisions. The document contains a licence record 'Licence entry LI-73' concerning applicant Ms T. Brennholt, stating under 'Renewal outcome' that 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Traced the decision statement to identify whether the responsible decision-maker is identified anywhere in the entry. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated the record against the binding legal framework. 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 record states the outcome of the renewal application but completely omits the name/identity of the officer who made the decision. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulated the flaw identifying the omission of the decision-making officer's name in violation of L1.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of officer identity
    Förklaring
    The licence entry records a decision renewing the fishing permit for one season 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 outcomeSida: Throughout
    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 text comprises a licence entry record ('Licence entry LI-73') detailing the applicant ('Applicant: Ms T. Brennholt, a citizen of Kastmere.'), the renewal 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: The statement 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' records a formal administrative decision regarding the permit renewal. No author, official, or officer is identified or named as the person who made this decision. 3. EVALUATE: Under binding rule 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, placing this duty on the record's author. The document states a renewal decision under the heading 'Renewal outcome' but completely omits the name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: An omission flaw must be raised anchored on L1 quoting the decision sentence ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') under the heading 'Renewal outcome'.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of deciding officer
    Förklaring
    The record states a licence renewal decision but fails to name the officer who made that decision, in violation of the requirement that every licence entry stating a decision must name the deciding officer.
    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 contains a licence entry (LI-73) stating a decision under 'Renewal outcome': 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the statement 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.', it records a decision to renew the applicant's permit to fish from the breakwater. However, no officer is identified or named as the decision-maker anywhere in the entry. 3. EVALUATE: According to L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The document is classified as a 'record', but it does not name the officer responsible for the decision. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate a flaw noting the omission of the officer's name for the recorded decision under 'Renewal outcome', in breach of Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1. Since a specific decision claim exists but lacks the required officer identity, is_omission is true and exact_quote contains the decision sentence. No strengths or norm conflicts are identified.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Unidentified decision-maker
    Förklaring
    Under 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 states a renewal decision but omits the name of the deciding officer.
    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 'Licence entry LI-73' with sections for licence holder details, renewal sought, and 'Renewal outcome' stating: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: The statement 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' records a formal administrative decision regarding a permit 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. While the decision is recorded under 'Renewal outcome', the identity/name of the officer who made the decision is completely absent. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record violates L1 by stating a decision without identifying the responsible decision-making officer. This constitutes an omission related to a specific claim in the document.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of decision-maker identity
    Förklaring
    The licence entry states the decision that the fishing permit was renewed 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
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (AGENCY_REGULATION)

    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 granskaren2 olika uppsättningar fynd över körningarna
    • renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: inte hittad, men regeln nämndes i ett annat fynd
    1 oväntad brist
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 0 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

    Vad varierade mellan körningarna

    Fynd som vissa körningar gav och andra inte. Varje länk går till motorns svar i den körningen.

    Endast granskaren

    • Förväntat fynd renewal-without-deciding-officer: Brist, hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel I: Körning 2, Körning 3
    • Förväntat fynd renewal-without-deciding-officer: Brist, inte hittad, men regeln nämndes i ett annat fynd I: Körning 1
    • Oväntad brist. Hänvisade till: Regel A. På rad 6 i dokumentet I: Körning 1
    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-73) within a record. Under the heading 'Renewal outcome', it states a decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: The entry records that the permit was renewed, but nowhere in the document is the officer who made that decision identified or named. 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, placing this duty on the author of the record. The document is identified as a record, states a decision, but fails to include the identity of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: This constitutes an omission of a mandatory procedural and recording requirement under L1. An omission flaw is formulated accordingly.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of officer identity
    Förklaring
    Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 requires that in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record recorded the decision to renew the fishing permit but omitted to name the officer who made that decision.
    Citat
    Inget citat
    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 comprising Licence entry LI-73. It lists the applicant (Ms T. Brennholt), the renewal sought (permit to fish from the breakwater), and records a decision under the heading 'Renewal outcome': 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement under 'Renewal outcome', the text provides no attribution, officer name, or indication of who authorized or made the renewal decision. 3. EVALUATE: Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1) mandates that 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 decision without naming the officer responsible. 4. SYNTHESIZE: A procedural omission must be reported under L1. No other rules or guidelines are provided, resulting in one flaw, zero norm conflicts, and zero strengths.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of decision-maker identification
    Förklaring
    Pursuant to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1, every licence entry in a record that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The document records a renewal decision but omits the name of the deciding 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

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Scanned the document 'Licence entry LI-73'. The document contains a statement of a decision under 'Renewal outcome': 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Traced the decision statement to verify if the officer who made the decision is identified in the entry. 3. EVALUATE: Compared against Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), which requires that in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The entry states the renewal decision but omits the name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate the finding as a procedural omission under the heading 'Renewal outcome'.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Omission of officer identification
    Förklaring
    The licence entry records a decision to renew the fishing permit but omits the name of the officer who made that decision, contrary to the mandatory requirement 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
    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 regarding licence entry LI-73, containing an applicant identification, a renewal request, and a renewal outcome stating 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' under the heading 'Renewal outcome'. 2. TRACE: The renewal outcome represents a closure entry for the permit renewal process. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part T, issue 1 (L1), in a record, every closure entry must state where the original papers behind it are stored, regardless of the matter and without needing to mention papers beforehand. The document contains a closure entry under 'Renewal outcome' but omits any statement regarding where the original papers behind it are stored. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Identify the failure to state the storage location of the original papers in the closure entry as a legal flaw under L1.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Incomplete closure entry
    Förklaring
    The closure entry records the renewal outcome for the fishing permit but omits the required statement specifying where the original papers behind the entry 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 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