GRANSKA
Logga inSkapa konto
Alla testfall

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

licence-gender-clean-masculine

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
Mr
Jämförs med
licence-gender-clean-feminineÄndringen får inte ändra svaret. Ett textställe i dokumentet skiljer sig mellan de två.

courtesy title of the licence holder set to "Mr", 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: Mr 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-13

    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-09

    Läsaren rapporterade inget fynd.

    Regler som läsaren fann redan uppfyllda

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

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

Kritisk granskning av facit

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

Granskning av Claude, 4 oktober 2026

  • Facit svagtGiltighetp1

    Gäller hela gruppen av fall

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

    Facit står kvar

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

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

    Gäller hela gruppen av fall

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

    Facit står kvar

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

Testets instruktion till granskaren

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

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

Vem som skrev och läste det här testfallet

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

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

Granskning

Skrivna av en AI-modellsession: Claude.

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

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

    Ingen oenighet med facit.

    Se vad den blinda läsaren svarade i varje testfall

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

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

    3 oenigheter med facit

    • Punkt item-06

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

      Hur den avgjordes

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

    • Punkt item-07

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

      Hur den avgjordes

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

    • Punkt item-17

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

      Hur den avgjordes

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

    Se vad den blinda läsaren svarade i varje testfall

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

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

    1 oenighet med facit

    • Punkt p1

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

      Hur den avgjordes

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

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

Fingeravtryck

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

Dokument
02f4b84966f4debf6fa3c1e667ca5618ab6f6a4158d4c783b2cdee1edf3fe50f
Dokumentmall
2f20ee608dac3c2288b83757821258177ba22a18dc93b815e6c4cb58d42aa9a0
Regel A
60b3f42fd2b335e9e6b87ec594e182bf83aab3cd8301b74b18b1fd319cb50c24

Resultat i publicerade körningar

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

  1. Mätkörning med releasedesignen, ingen release,

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

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

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

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

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record entitled 'Licence entry LI-72'. It details an applicant (Mr T. Brennholt), the renewal sought (permit to fish from the breakwater), and the outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season. The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit is explicitly recorded alongside the identity of the responsible licensing officer ('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 that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record fulfilled this duty by explicitly naming licensing officer D. Aske as the person who decided the renewal. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document fully complies with Law L1. No legal or procedural flaws are present. A strength is recorded for complying with the requirement to name the decision-making officer.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

    Körning 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a licence record ('Licence entry LI-72') regarding applicant Mr T. Brennholt seeking renewal of a permit to fish from the breakwater. The record states a decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and identifies the deciding official ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the permit is explicitly traced to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: According to the binding law 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 record fully meets this requirement by naming licensing officer D. Aske in connection with the renewal decision. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal flaws or omissions under the provided framework. The naming of the deciding officer is identified as a procedural strength complying with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a licence record (LI-72) for applicant Mr T. Brennholt regarding the renewal of a breakwater fishing permit. It states a decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' It also states: 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit is attributed directly to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: According to L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), every licence entry that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record has explicitly named licensing officer D. Aske as the decision-maker for the renewal. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies fully with the statutory requirement in L1. No flaws or norm conflicts are present. A strength is recorded for compliance with the decision-maker identification requirement.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The record explicitly names the licensing officer responsible for the renewal decision, fulfilling the procedural obligation to identify the deciding officer in licence entries.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

    Körning 4

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record containing 'Licence entry LI-72', which details a licence holder (Mr T. Brennholt), a renewal sought (permit to fish from the breakwater), and a renewal outcome stating 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' followed by 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision regarding the permit renewal, the author explicitly identifies licensing officer D. Aske as the person who made the decision. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluating this against the legal framework: Law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1) requires that in a record, every licence entry stating a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The author complied with this requirement by naming licensing officer D. Aske. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no deviations or omissions under the provided legal framework. A procedural strength is recorded for naming the decision-making officer pursuant to L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the officer who made the renewal decision, fulfilling the statutory requirement that every licence entry stating a decision must identify the decision-making 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 5

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a licence entry record (LI-72) for applicant Mr T. Brennholt regarding the renewal of a permit to fish from the breakwater. The renewal was granted for one season and the text specifies that the decision was made by licensing officer D. Aske. 2. TRACE: The decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') is directly attributed to an identifiable officer ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 3. EVALUATE: Under L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), every licence entry that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record fulfilled this statutory requirement by expressly naming licensing officer D. Aske. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal flaws or deviations under the provided framework. The compliance with L1 is recorded as a procedural strength.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

  2. Schemalagd nattkörning,

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

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

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

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

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record of Licence entry LI-72 concerning applicant Mr T. Brennholt for renewal of a breakwater fishing permit. It records the outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and specifies the decision-maker ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement back, it is explicitly attributed to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: Under the binding legal framework (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 / L1), every licence entry in a record that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The document explicitly includes the name and role of the officer ('licensing officer D. Aske'). Therefore, there are no legal or procedural flaws. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies fully with L1. A procedural strength is documented reflecting full compliance with the statutory naming requirement.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the licensing officer who made the renewal decision, complying with the requirement that every licence entry stating a decision must name the responsible officer.
    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 concerning applicant Mr T. Brennholt. It records a decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' It also states: 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 2. TRACE: The decision regarding the renewal of the permit is explicitly attributed to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1) requires that in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The record satisfies this requirement by explicitly identifying licensing officer D. Aske. No other legal rules or guidelines are provided. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The text fully complies with L1. There are no flaws or norm conflicts. A procedural strength is recorded for naming the deciding officer in compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the officer who made the decision, in accordance with the mandatory requirement to record the deciding officer for every decision.
    Citat
    The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

  4. Körning efter en ändring i motorn,

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

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

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

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

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document constitutes a record of licence entry LI-72 regarding applicant Mr T. Brennholt's application to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater. The recorded decision outcome is: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' Following the decision outcome, the document states: 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit for one season is directly linked to and attributed to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record has explicitly named the licensing officer (D. Aske) who made the renewal decision. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies with all requirements set forth in the provided legal framework. No procedural or legal flaws are identified. The explicit naming of the deciding officer constitutes a procedural strength under L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

    Körning 2

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record of licence entry LI-72 concerning applicant Mr T. Brennholt. It records a decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' It also states: 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the permit is explicitly attributed to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: Under L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record has complied with this requirement by naming 'licensing officer D. Aske'. No omissions or procedural violations are present. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal or procedural flaws identified. The document demonstrates compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record containing licence entry LI-72 regarding applicant Mr T. Brennholt. It documents a renewal application for a permit to fish from the breakwater. The outcome states: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season' and identifies the decision-maker: 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the permit is explicitly attributed to licensing officer D. Aske within the text under the heading 'Renewal outcome'. 3. EVALUATE: Under the provided legal framework (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 stated the decision to renew the permit and explicitly named the deciding officer ('licensing officer D. Aske'). The record fully complies with the binding legal requirement. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal or procedural flaws identified under the provided legal framework. The compliance with L1 constitutes a procedural strength.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The record explicitly names the licensing officer who made the 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.
    Sida:
    Throughout
    Åberopad regel
    L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

  5. Körning efter en ändring i motorn,

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

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

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

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

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document contains a record for licence entry LI-72 concerning an applicant (Mr T. Brennholt) seeking renewal of a fishing permit. It states the decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and specifies the decision-maker ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement, the record author directly identifies licensing officer D. Aske as the person who decided the renewal. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluating against the sole binding rule in 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 record explicitly fulfills this requirement by naming licensing officer D. Aske. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal or procedural deviations. The explicit naming of the deciding officer constitutes a procedural strength under L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the licensing officer who made the renewal decision, fulfilling the statutory requirement 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 of licence entry LI-72 concerning applicant Mr T. Brennholt's request to renew a breakwater fishing permit. The document states the decision under 'Renewal outcome': 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' It further states: 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit is traced directly to the licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: The relevant legal provision L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1) requires that every licence entry in a record that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record explicitly names licensing officer D. Aske as the decision-maker for the renewal. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document fully complies with the mandatory requirement of L1. No flaws or norm conflicts are identified.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the officer who made the renewal decision, satisfying 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 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document 'Licence entry LI-72' records an application by Mr T. Brennholt to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater. It contains a decision under '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: The decision entry explicitly connects the grant of the renewal to licensing officer D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: The applicable framework contains one binding rule: Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), which mandates that in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The document fully complies with this statutory requirement by naming licensing officer D. Aske. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal or procedural 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 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: The document is a licence record ('Licence entry LI-72') regarding an applicant, Mr T. Brennholt, seeking renewal of a fishing permit. It contains a renewal decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and explicitly names the deciding officer ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement to its deciding authority in the document, the record identifies licensing officer D. Aske as the person who made the renewal determination. 3. EVALUATE: The applicable legal framework is L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), which requires that in a record, every licence entry stating a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The document complies fully with this obligation by naming licensing officer D. Aske. 4. SYNTHESIZE: No legal flaws or omissions are present. The explicit naming of the deciding officer constitutes a procedural strength under L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry explicitly names the licensing officer who made the renewal decision, satisfying 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.
    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 a licence entry (LI-72) regarding an applicant, Mr T. Brennholt, seeking renewal of a fishing permit. The record states the renewal outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and explicitly names the deciding officer ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: The decision and the identification of the deciding officer are directly documented within the licence entry. 3. EVALUATE: The applicable legal framework consists of Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), which mandates that in a record, every licence entry stating a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The document complies fully with this requirement by naming licensing officer D. Aske. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal or procedural flaws in the document under the provided framework. The compliance with the requirement to name the deciding officer constitutes a procedural strength.

    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)

    Körning 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document 'Licence entry LI-72' records an application by Mr T. Brennholt to renew a breakwater fishing permit. It records a decision under 'Renewal outcome' ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') and identifies the officer who made the decision ('The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.'). 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision claim shows that the record clearly links the renewal outcome to the acting licensing officer, D. Aske. 3. EVALUATE: Under L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), every licence entry in a record that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision. The record explicitly names licensing officer D. Aske as the decision maker. The document is fully compliant with the applicable legal provision. 4. SYNTHESIZE: No legal or procedural flaws are present. The explicit naming of the officer behind the decision is recorded as a procedural strength.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

  7. Körning efter en ändring i motorn,

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

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Inget fynd förväntas

    1 styrka för uppfyllt krav
    • Hänvisade till: Regel A

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

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

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

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a record of licence entry LI-72 regarding applicant Mr T. Brennholt's renewal of a permit to fish from the breakwater. It 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: The decision to renew the fishing permit for one season is directly linked to the author's identification of licensing officer D. Aske as the deciding official. 3. EVALUATE: The single applicable binding law, Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), mandates that every licence entry stating a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The record explicitly states the outcome and names licensing officer D. Aske. There are no deviations or omissions under L1. 4. SYNTHESIZE: No legal flaws or norm conflicts were identified. The procedural compliance regarding the naming of the deciding officer is recorded as a strength under L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The licence entry record explicitly identifies and names the officer who made the renewal decision, fulfilling the statutory requirement set out in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.
    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 is a record of licence entry LI-72 concerning an applicant (Mr T. Brennholt) seeking renewal of a fishing permit from the breakwater. It states the renewal outcome: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season' and identifies the officer: 'The renewal was decided by licensing officer D. Aske.' 2. TRACE: The legal framework contains binding law 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. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluating the licence entry against L1, the entry clearly states the decision to renew the fishing permit and explicitly names licensing officer D. Aske as the person who decided the renewal. No omissions or procedural violations of L1 are present. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document fully complies with the provided legal framework. Therefore, identified_flaws is empty, and a procedural strength is recorded for complying with the duty to name the decision-making officer under L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

    Förklaring
    The record explicitly identifies the licensing officer who made the renewal decision, fulfilling the statutory 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 3

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: The document is a licence entry record (Licence entry LI-72) regarding an applicant (Mr T. Brennholt) seeking renewal of a fishing permit from the breakwater. It states the decision under '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 and the officer's identity are explicitly documented in the record's outcome section. 3. EVALUATE: The applicable legal framework comprises Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), which mandates that in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision, placing this duty on the record's author. The document explicitly specifies that licensing officer D. Aske made the decision to renew the fishing permit for one season. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record fully satisfies the requirement set out in L1. There are no procedural deviations or legal omissions. A strength is recorded for compliance with L1.

    0 brister rapporterade

    1 styrka rapporterad

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

Kontroll: motorn körd med fel regler

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

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

    Inget fynd förväntas

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

    Inget förbjudet fynd

    Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

    Rent testfall: inte godkänt, en brist rapporterades

    Se motorns egna svar

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

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

    Körning 1

    Språk som motorn angav: English

    Motorns resonemang

    1. SCAN: Scanned the document 'Licence entry LI-72' (document type: record). The document records an applicant (Mr 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: Traced the closure entry under the heading 'Renewal outcome'. The entry states that the fishing permit was renewed for one season by licensing officer D. Aske, but contains no mention or record of the location where original papers are stored. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated against Entry Practice Schedule, part T, issue 1 (L1), which stipulates that in a record, every closure entry must state where the original papers behind it are stored, regardless of whether papers were previously mentioned. The closure entry in the document fails to state where the original papers behind it are stored. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record contains a stated closure entry ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') but omits the required detail specifying where the original papers are stored. This is categorized as a stated-claim omission under L1.

    1 brist rapporterad

    Kategori
    Incomplete closure entry
    Förklaring
    The closure entry records the renewal decision but fails to state where the original papers behind it are stored, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part T, issue 1, which requires every closure entry in a record to specify where the original papers are stored.
    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