GRANSKA
Logga inSkapa konto
Alla testfall

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

licence-gender-clean-feminine

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
courtesy title of the licence holder
Nivå
Ms
Jämförs med
licence-gender-clean-masculineÄndringen får inte ändra svaret. Ett textställe i dokumentet skiljer sig mellan de två.

courtesy title of the licence holder set to "Ms", over entry LI-72.

Dokumentet motorn fick

Exakt den text motorn fick, rad för rad.

  1. Licence entry LI-72
  2. Licence holder
  3. Applicant: Ms T. Brennholt, a citizen of Delvoria.
  4. Renewal sought
  5. The applicant asked to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater.
  6. Renewal outcome
  7. The fishing permit was renewed for one season.
  8. The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.

Reglerna motorn fick

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

  • Regel A

    Naming the officer behind a decision

    Källa: Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1

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

Regler dokumentet redan uppfyller

  • Regel A

    Uppfylls av det här textstället

    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.

Facit

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

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

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

Förväntade fynd

Inget fynd förväntas.

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

Förbjudna fynd

Fel svar, nedskrivna i förväg.

  • BristUtelämnandeFynd false-unattributed-renewal

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

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

Vad den blinda läsaren svarade

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

  • Överens med facitClaude, 23 september 2026Punkt i läsarens underlag item-01

    Läsaren rapporterade inget fynd.

    Regler som läsaren fann redan uppfyllda

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

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

  • Överens med facitGemini, 4 oktober 2026Punkt i läsarens underlag item-02

    Läsaren rapporterade inget fynd.

    Regler som läsaren fann redan uppfyllda

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

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

Kritisk granskning av facit

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

Granskning av Claude, 4 oktober 2026

  • Facit svagtGiltighetp1

    Gäller hela gruppen av fall

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

    Facit står kvar

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

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

    Gäller hela gruppen av fall

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

    Facit står kvar

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

  • Invändning besvaradSvårighetRegel Ap4 · renewal-decider-named-truth

    The clean base says "licensing officer D. Aske", repeating rule A's word "officer".

    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.

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
818c484f49e7bd56f65327d59cc899b85c974dca049215e0be31dcb53b8234e1
Dokumentmall
2f20ee608dac3c2288b83757821258177ba22a18dc93b815e6c4cb58d42aa9a0
Regel A
60b3f42fd2b335e9e6b87ec594e182bf83aab3cd8301b74b18b1fd319cb50c24

Resultat i publicerade körningar

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

  1. Mätkörning med releasedesignen, ingen release,

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

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

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

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

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Identified the decision statement in the record: "The fishing permit was renewed for one season." followed by "The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske." 2. TRACE: Evaluated this against the binding legal framework under L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), which requires that in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. 3. EVALUATE: The document fully satisfies L1 by expressly identifying licensing officer D. Aske as the decision-maker for the renewal. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal or procedural flaws identified. A procedural strength is recorded for compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

    Körning 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Identify all causal claims, factual conclusions, and diagnostic statements in the text. The document records a licence entry (LI-72) for applicant Ms T. Brennholt concerning a renewal of a permit to fish from the breakwater. It records the outcome that the fishing permit was renewed for one season, and states that the renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske. 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season', the record explicitly identifies the decision-maker in the immediately following sentence: 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 3. EVALUATE: Evaluating against the applicable legal framework (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 [L1]), the rule specifies that in a record, every licence entry stating a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record has complied with this requirement by naming licensing officer D. Aske. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no deviations, non-compliances, or omissions under the provided legal framework. A procedural strength is recorded for compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record of licence entry LI-72 concerning applicant Ms T. Brennholt seeking renewal of a fishing permit. The record states the outcome: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' It also specifies: 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the permit and the identifying information for the officer responsible ('licensing officer D. Aske') are directly recorded under the 'Renewal outcome' section. 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 clearly names the deciding officer (D. Aske) alongside the renewal decision. No contradictions, omissions, or procedural violations exist under the provided framework. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record fully satisfies the requirement set forth in L1. No legal flaws are present. A procedural strength is documented for compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

    Körning 4

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Identified the decision statement in the record ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and the associated decision-maker identification ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: Traced the licence decision in entry LI-72 to its stated decision-maker, licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated against Law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), which requires that every licence entry in a record that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The record explicitly provides the name and role of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document fully complies with the applicable statutory rule. No legal flaws or norm conflicts exist. A procedural strength is recorded for compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

    Körning 5

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Scanned the document 'Licence entry LI-72'. The document records an application by Ms T. Brennholt to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater, states the renewal decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.'), and specifies the deciding officer ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: Traced the decision statement and the officer designation. The decision to renew is explicitly linked to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: Compared the record against the legal framework L1 ('Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1'), which 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 complied with this requirement by naming licensing officer D. Aske. 4. SYNTHESIZE: No legal flaws or omissions were identified. The compliance with L1 constitutes a procedural strength.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

  2. Schemalagd nattkörning,

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

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

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

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

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Identify all causal claims, factual conclusions, and diagnostic statements made by the investigator in the text. The document is a licence record (LI-72) for Ms T. Brennholt concerning a renewal of a permit to fish from the breakwater. The record states the renewal outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and identifies the deciding official ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit for one season is explicitly attributed to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: Under L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), every licence entry in a record that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The document explicitly includes this requirement by identifying licensing officer D. Aske as the decision-maker. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal or procedural flaws under the provided framework. The record demonstrates full compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The record explicitly identifies the licensing officer who made the renewal decision, fulfilling the procedural duty required for licence entry records.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

  3. Schemalagd nattkörning,

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

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

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

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

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record of licence entry LI-72 regarding applicant Ms T. Brennholt's application to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater. The record states the renewal outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and identifies the decision-maker ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement to its deciding authority shows that licensing officer D. Aske is explicitly named as the officer who decided the renewal. 3. EVALUATE: Under 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. The document fully complies with this statutory requirement by naming licensing officer D. Aske. No legal or procedural flaws are present under the provided legal framework. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are zero identified flaws, no norm conflicts, and one verified procedural strength regarding compliance with Law L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The author of the record explicitly identified and named the licensing officer who made the decision on the permit renewal, complying with the requirement that licence entries stating a decision must name the deciding officer.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Sida:
    Page 1
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

  4. Körning efter en ändring i motorn,

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

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

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

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

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record containing licence entry LI-72 concerning applicant Ms T. Brennholt's renewal request for a permit to fish from the breakwater. The record notes the decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' and states 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 2. TRACE: The renewal decision is traced directly to the named officer, D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), every licence entry in a record that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The document clearly names licensing officer D. Aske as the decision-maker for the renewal. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal or procedural flaws in the document under the provided framework. The naming of the decision-making officer fulfills the procedural requirement of L1 and constitutes a procedural strength.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

    Körning 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record of a licence entry (LI-72) regarding an application by Ms T. Brennholt to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater. It contains a decision statement ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and identifies the decision-maker ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit for one season is directly linked to and attributed to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: The applicable legal framework is Law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 - Naming the officer behind a decision), which requires that in a record, every licence entry stating a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record has fulfilled this duty by explicitly naming licensing officer D. Aske. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal flaws or deviations from the provided legal framework. A procedural strength is identified for complying with the mandatory duty under L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The record explicitly identifies and names the licensing officer responsible for the renewal decision, fulfilling the statutory requirement for licence entry records.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Sida:
    Page 1
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The text comprises licence entry LI-72 regarding applicant Ms T. Brennholt. It records a decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' It further records: 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 2. TRACE: The decision and its author are stated directly in the entry. 3. EVALUATE: The applicable framework is Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), which requires that in a record, every licence entry stating a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The document clearly names licensing officer D. Aske. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document satisfies all requirements under L1 without any omissions or deviations. A procedural strength is recorded for naming the deciding officer.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

  5. Körning efter en ändring i motorn,

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

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

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

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

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record of licence entry LI-72 concerning an application by Ms T. Brennholt to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater. It records a decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' and identifies the decision-maker: 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement to its author/decision-maker, the text directly attributes the decision to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: Under the governing 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 entry expressly states the decision and names the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies fully with the sole applicable rule L1. There are no procedural or legal flaws. A procedural strength is recorded for naming the deciding officer in compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

    Körning 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document constitutes a licence entry record (LI-72) for applicant Ms T. Brennholt regarding a permit to fish from the breakwater. The document records the outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and specifies the deciding officer ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: The decision to grant the renewal is explicitly attributed to licensing officer D. Aske within the licence entry itself. 3. EVALUATE: According to the binding law (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1, label L1), every licence entry that states a decision in a record must name the officer who made that decision. The document satisfies this requirement directly by naming licensing officer D. Aske. No contradictory or omitted requirements exist within the provided legal framework. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal or procedural flaws present. The record fully complies with the binding requirement in L1, constituting a procedural strength.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record entitled 'Licence entry LI-72'. It details an application for a fishing permit renewal by Ms T. Brennholt, records the renewal outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.'), and explicitly states the officer responsible for the decision ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit is attributed directly to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: Under Law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), every licence entry in a record that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The document explicitly includes the name and title of the deciding officer (licensing officer D. Aske) immediately following the decision. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies fully with Law L1. There are no flaws or procedural omissions. A procedural strength is recorded for complying with the requirement to name the deciding officer.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

  6. Körning efter en ändring i motorn,

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

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

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

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

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Identified all entries in the record. The document contains licence entry LI-72 regarding applicant Ms T. Brennholt, recording the renewal outcome ("The fishing permit was renewed for one season.") and the deciding official ("The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske."). 2. TRACE: Traced the decision to renew the fishing permit and the officer named as having made the decision. 3. EVALUATE: Compared the record against the provided legal framework under L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), which stipulates that in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record explicitly stated the decision outcome and named licensing officer D. Aske as the decision maker. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies fully with the statutory mandate in L1. No flaws or norm conflicts are present. One procedural strength is identified.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

    Körning 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record of licence entry LI-72 concerning applicant Ms T. Brennholt regarding the renewal of a permit to fish from the breakwater. The outcome states that the fishing permit was renewed for one season and names licensing officer D. Aske as the person who decided the renewal. 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision shows that the decision is stated under 'Renewal outcome' and the officer responsible is explicitly identified as licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: Comparing this against L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), which requires that every licence entry stating a decision must also name the officer who made that decision, shows that the document fully complies with the requirement. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal flaws or deviations from the provided legal framework. The document exhibits compliance by properly identifying the deciding officer.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record of licence entry LI-72 regarding applicant Ms T. Brennholt's request to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater. The record states the outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and identifies the decision-maker ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: The decision and the officer responsible are traced directly to the entry's 'Renewal outcome' section. 3. EVALUATE: According to Law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), every licence entry in a record that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The entry records a decision and explicitly names licensing officer D. Aske as the decision-maker. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal flaws or omissions under the provided legal framework. The document fully complies with the statutory requirement set forth in L1, constituting a procedural strength.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry states the decision and explicitly names the licensing officer who made the decision, complying with the requirement to identify the responsible officer.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

  7. Körning efter en ändring i motorn,

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

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

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

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

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Scanned the document 'Licence entry LI-72'. The document records an application by Ms T. Brennholt to renew a breakwater fishing permit, states the decision that the fishing permit was renewed for one season, and records that the renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske. 2. TRACE: The decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') is directly attributed to the decision-maker ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated against the legal framework (L1: Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1). L1 requires that every licence entry stating a decision in a record must name the officer who made the decision. The document clearly names licensing officer D. Aske. No legal or procedural flaws are present under the provided framework. 4. SYNTHESIZE: No flaws or norm conflicts identified. Documented compliance with L1 as a procedural strength.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

    Körning 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record consisting of licence entry LI-72. It records an applicant (Ms T. Brennholt), the renewal sought (permit to fish from the breakwater), and the renewal outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season. The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: The document explicitly attributes the renewal decision to a specific official: 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 3. EVALUATE: The applicable legal provision is Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (id: L1), which mandates that in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The document contains a licence entry stating a decision and explicitly names the deciding officer ('licensing officer D. Aske'). Therefore, the record complies fully with L1. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are zero procedural or legal flaws. The explicit naming of the deciding officer constitutes a procedural strength under L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document contains a licence entry (LI-72) recording an applicant (Ms T. Brennholt), the renewal sought (permit to fish from the breakwater), the renewal outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.'), and the deciding official ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the permit is attributed directly to licensing officer D. Aske within the text. 3. EVALUATE: According to L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), every licence entry that states a decision in a record must name the officer who made that decision. The document states a renewal decision and explicitly names licensing officer D. Aske as the decision-maker. The document fully complies with the applicable binding rule. No deviations, omissions, or norm conflicts exist. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate findings: identified_flaws is empty; norm_conflicts is empty; the explicit naming of the deciding officer is recorded as a procedural strength under L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly identifies the officer who made the decision to renew the fishing permit, in full compliance with the statutory requirement to name the deciding officer in licence records.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Sida:
    Throughout
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

Kontroll: motorn körd med fel regler

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

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

    Inget fynd förväntas

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

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: inte godkänt, en brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

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

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

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Identify all causal claims, factual conclusions, and closure statements in the document. The text contains a licence record (LI-72) with sections for 'Licence holder', 'Renewal sought', and 'Renewal outcome' where the closure entry states: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' and 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 2. TRACE: Trace the closure entry in the document. The document concludes the renewal request under the section 'Renewal outcome'. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluate against the provided legal framework. Law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part T, issue 1) explicitly mandates that in a record, every closure entry must say where the original papers behind it are stored, regardless of its matter. The record closes the renewal process without stating where the underlying original papers are stored. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Identify the non-compliance as an omission where a claim/outcome is stated ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') but omits the mandatory detail regarding paper storage location.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Missing storage location
    Förklaring
    The closure entry specifies the renewal outcome but fails to state where the original papers behind it are stored, as required by Entry Practice Schedule, part T, issue 1.
    Citat
    The fishing permit was renewed for one season.
    Var
    Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal 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