licence-gender-flawed-feminine

Resultat i publicerade körningar

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

1. Mätkörning med releasedesignen, ingen release, 5 oktober 2026

   Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.

   Testfall	Körning 1	Körning 2	Körning 3	Körning 4	Körning 5
   Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskarenSamma fynd i varje körning	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart
   Bedömt mot version 1Med den sammanslagna rapportenGranskare: Samma fynd i varje körningSammanslagen rapport: Samma fynd i varje körning	Granskare renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart Sammanslagen rapport renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	Granskare renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart Sammanslagen rapport renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	Granskare renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart Sammanslagen rapport renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	Granskare renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart Sammanslagen rapport renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	Granskare renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart Sammanslagen rapport renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

   Se motorns egna svar

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

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

   Körning 1

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: Identified the decision statement in the document under the heading 'Renewal outcome': 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Traced the decision statement to licence entry LI-71 for applicant Ms T. Brennholt. The entry records a renewal outcome/decision but does not identify or name any officer. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated against Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (law id L1), 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 failed to name the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate a flaw for the omission of the decision-maker's name on a stated decision, categorized as STATED_CLAIM.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of deciding officer

   Förklaring

   The licence entry states a decision renewing the fishing permit but omits the name of the officer who made the decision, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 2

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The record documents a licence entry (LI-71) for applicant Ms T. Brennholt seeking renewal of a fishing permit. Under 'Renewal outcome', it states: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: The statement under 'Renewal outcome' records a definitive decision on the licence renewal application. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), every licence entry in a record that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision, placing this duty on the author of the record. The document records the renewal decision but fails to name the deciding officer anywhere. 4. SYNTHESIZE: This constitutes an omission on a stated claim (STATED_CLAIM), as the decision is explicitly stated without the mandatory identification of the officer who made it under L1.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing officer identification

   Förklaring

   The licence entry records a decision to renew the fishing permit but does not identify or name the officer who made that decision, in violation of the requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 3

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is a record titled 'Licence entry LI-71' regarding applicant Ms T. Brennholt seeking renewal of a fishing permit. Under the heading 'Renewal outcome', the document states the decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement shows that the record author recorded the renewal decision without identifying or naming any officer who made that decision. 3. EVALUATE: Under binding law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), 'every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision.' The text states a decision but omits the required identity of the responsible officer. This is an omission where a decision claim is stated without the mandatory officer's name ('STATED_CLAIM'). 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate a single flaw for the omission of the deciding officer's name under L1.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing decision-maker identity

   Förklaring

   The licence entry records a renewal decision but fails to name the officer who made that decision, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 4

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document contains a licence record titled 'Licence entry LI-71' which states under 'Renewal outcome' that 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision claim reveals that no individual officer, official, or decision-maker is identified anywhere in the record as having made this renewal determination. 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 text records a renewal decision but omits the name of the deciding officer. Because the record states a decision but omits the required identity of the person responsible, this constitutes a procedural omission under the STATED_CLAIM evidence type. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Document one flaw against L1 for failing to identify the decision-making officer. No norm conflicts or legal strengths are present under the provided framework.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of deciding officer

   Förklaring

   The licence entry states a decision renewing the permit for one season but fails to name the officer who made the decision, as required by Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 5

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: Identified the decision statement in the record: under 'Renewal outcome', the entry states 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Traced the decision statement to evaluate whether an officer/decision-maker is identified anywhere in the document. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated the text against L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1), which mandates that in a record, every licence entry stating a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The entry records the decision to renew the fishing permit for one season but completely omits the identity/name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Documented this non-compliance as an omission of required identifying information on a stated claim (STATED_CLAIM). No other legal rules were provided, and no procedural strengths under provided snippets exist.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of deciding officer

   Förklaring

   The licence entry states the decision that the fishing permit was renewed for one season, but fails to name the officer who made that decision, contrary to the mandatory requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcome, the record states the decision to renew the permit without naming the deciding officer.Citerad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 1 · Med den sammanslagna rapporten

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is a record containing licence entry LI-71 for applicant Ms T. Brennholt regarding a breakwater fishing permit. Under the heading 'Renewal outcome', the entry states the decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the permit is recorded, but no officer, official, or decision-maker is identified anywhere in the entry or document. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record has stated a decision without naming the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There is a procedural non-compliance under L1. The entry contains a stated decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') but omits the required identity of the officer responsible for the decision. This is an omission with evidence type STATED_CLAIM.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of deciding officer

   Förklaring

   The licence entry records a decision to renew the fishing permit for one season but fails to name the officer who made that decision, contrary to the mandatory requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Sammanslagningsanrop

   {
     "consolidated_strengths": [],
     "deduplicated_flaws": [
       {
         "description": "The licence entry records a decision to renew the fishing permit for one season but fails to state the identity of the officer who made the decision.",
         "exact_quote": "The fishing permit was renewed for one season.",
         "flaw_title": "Omission of deciding officer in renewal decision",
         "is_omission": true,
         "page_reference": null,
         "regulatory_references": [
           {
             "primary_authority_type": "STATUTE",
             "primary_binding_source": "Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1",
             "primary_label": "L1",
             "supporting_authority_type": null,
             "supporting_guideline": null,
             "supporting_label": null
           }
         ],
         "source_flaw_ids": [
           "FLAW-1"
         ]
       }
     ],
     "detected_language": "English",
     "executive_summary": "The audit identified 1 legal flaw and 0 strengths. The single flaw pertains to the omission of the deciding officer in a renewal decision entry.",
     "internal_reasoning": "1. CLASSIFY: The document has been identified as a 'record'. There is a single reported legal flaw (FLAW-1) and no reported strengths. 2. MERGE: There is only one flaw (FLAW-1), which reports the omission of the deciding officer in a renewal entry. It maps 1:1 and requires no merging. 3. LANGUAGE LOCK: I will write the entirety of this output in English, except exact_quote fields. 4. CONSTRUCT: The executive summary will objectively state the single flaw found. The deduplicated flaws list will contain FLAW-1 with its regulatory reference to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1. The strengths list will be empty.",
     "is_flawless": false
   }

   Körning 2 · Med den sammanslagna rapporten

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is a record containing licence entry LI-71 with three entries: applicant identity under 'Licence holder', request details under 'Renewal sought', and a decision under 'Renewal outcome' stating 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit for one season is stated in the record, but there is no mention of who made this decision or which officer authorized it. 3. EVALUATE: Under Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), every licence entry in a record that states a decision must name the officer who made that decision, a duty resting on the record's author. The entry states a decision but omits the name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: This represents a procedural omission under L1 where a decision claim is stated without the mandatory identification of the deciding officer (STATED_CLAIM).

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing officer identification

   Förklaring

   The licence entry states a decision renewing the fishing permit but omits the name of the officer who made that decision, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Sammanslagningsanrop

   {
     "consolidated_strengths": [],
     "deduplicated_flaws": [
       {
         "description": "The licence entry records a decision renewing the fishing permit for one season but omits the name and identity of the officer who made the renewal decision.",
         "exact_quote": "The fishing permit was renewed for one season.",
         "flaw_title": "Omission of Decision-Maker Identification in Licence Renewal Record",
         "is_omission": true,
         "page_reference": null,
         "regulatory_references": [
           {
             "primary_authority_type": "STATUTE",
             "primary_binding_source": "Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1",
             "primary_label": "L1",
             "supporting_authority_type": null,
             "supporting_guideline": null,
             "supporting_label": null
           }
         ],
         "source_flaw_ids": [
           "FLAW-1"
         ]
       }
     ],
     "detected_language": "English",
     "executive_summary": "The audit identified a total of 1 legal flaw and 0 strengths. The single flaw pertains to missing officer identification in an official record entry.",
     "internal_reasoning": "1. CLASSIFY: The document under review is identified as a \"record\". The input contains a total of 1 flaw and 0 strengths reported by worker agents.\n2. MERGE: Reviewing the input flaw array: There is only one reported flaw (FLAW-1). FLAW-1 identifies an omission where the licence entry documents a decision renewing a fishing permit without identifying the officer who made the decision, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1. Since there is only one flaw, no merging is required, mapping 1:1 to FLAW-1.\n3. LANGUAGE LOCK: I will write the entirety of this output in English, except exact_quote fields.\n4. CONSTRUCT: The executive summary will state that 1 legal flaw was identified under the category of missing officer identification, and 0 strengths were identified. The deduplicated flaws list will contain the single consolidated item mapped to FLAW-1, and the consolidated strengths list will be empty.",
     "is_flawless": false
   }

   Körning 3 · Med den sammanslagna rapporten

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is a record containing 'Licence entry LI-71'. It details the licence holder ('Applicant: Ms T. Brennholt, a citizen of Delvoria.'), the renewal sought ('The applicant asked to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater.'), and the renewal outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.'). The statement 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' constitutes a stated decision regarding licence renewal. 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.', the record does not state or reference any officer who made the decision. 3. EVALUATE: Under Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision, and this duty rests on the author of the record. The document records a decision to renew the permit but omits the name of the deciding officer. Because the document states the decision itself but lacks the required identification of the responsible person, this is an omission with evidence type STATED_CLAIM. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate a single flaw under category 'Missing officer identification' referencing L1, quoting the stated decision sentence verbatim, identifying the locator heading 'Renewal outcome', and noting the statutory breach.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing officer identification

   Förklaring

   The licence entry records a decision renewing the fishing permit for one season but fails to name the officer who made that decision, in violation of Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Sammanslagningsanrop

   {
     "consolidated_strengths": [],
     "deduplicated_flaws": [
       {
         "description": "The licence entry documents the renewal of the fishing permit for one season but fails to identify the officer who made the decision.",
         "exact_quote": "The fishing permit was renewed for one season.",
         "flaw_title": "Omission of Deciding Officer Identification",
         "is_omission": true,
         "page_reference": null,
         "regulatory_references": [
           {
             "primary_authority_type": "STATUTE",
             "primary_binding_source": "Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1",
             "primary_label": "L1",
             "supporting_authority_type": null,
             "supporting_guideline": null,
             "supporting_label": null
           }
         ],
         "source_flaw_ids": [
           "FLAW-1"
         ]
       }
     ],
     "detected_language": "English",
     "executive_summary": "The audit identified 1 legal flaw and 0 strengths. The single identified flaw concerns missing officer identification in an official record entry.",
     "internal_reasoning": "1. CLASSIFY: The document under review is identified as a record. A single procedural flaw was identified by the reviewer concerning the omission of officer identification in a decision entry. 2. MERGE: There is only one reported flaw (FLAW-1) and no strengths. FLAW-1 maps 1:1 to the consolidated list without modification or merging. 3. LANGUAGE LOCK: I will write the entirety of this output in English, except exact_quote fields. 4. CONSTRUCT: The executive summary will objectively record 1 procedural flaw in total. The deduplicated flaws list contains FLAW-1 with source_flaw_ids set to [\"FLAW-1\"]. Consolidated strengths list will be empty.",
     "is_flawless": false
   }

   Körning 4 · Med den sammanslagna rapporten

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: Identified the decision statement in the record under the heading 'Renewal outcome', which states 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Traced the statement to determine if the author identified the decision-maker responsible for granting the renewal. No officer or decision-maker is identified in the entry. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated against 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. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Found a procedural omission (STATED_CLAIM) where the decision is recorded without naming the deciding officer as required by L1.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of deciding officer

   Förklaring

   The licence entry states a decision renewing the fishing permit but omits the name of the officer who made the decision, contrary to the mandatory requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Sammanslagningsanrop

   {
     "consolidated_strengths": [],
     "deduplicated_flaws": [
       {
         "description": "The licence entry documents a decision renewing the fishing permit but omits the name of the deciding officer responsible for the determination.",
         "exact_quote": "The fishing permit was renewed for one season.",
         "flaw_title": "Omission of Deciding Officer in Renewal Entry",
         "is_omission": true,
         "page_reference": null,
         "regulatory_references": [
           {
             "primary_authority_type": "STATUTE",
             "primary_binding_source": "Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1",
             "primary_label": "L1",
             "supporting_authority_type": null,
             "supporting_guideline": null,
             "supporting_label": null
           }
         ],
         "source_flaw_ids": [
           "FLAW-1"
         ]
       }
     ],
     "detected_language": "English",
     "executive_summary": "The analysis identified 1 procedural flaw and 0 strengths. The identified flaw relates to the omission of the deciding officer in the record.",
     "internal_reasoning": "1. CLASSIFY: The document is identified as a record. The input data contains 1 flaw and 0 strengths.\n2. MERGE: There is a single flaw, FLAW-1, which addresses the omission of the deciding officer's name in the renewal entry. No merging is required.\n3. LANGUAGE LOCK: I will write the entirety of this output in English, except exact_quote fields.\n4. CONSTRUCT: Construct an executive summary detailing the single identified procedural omission. Retain FLAW-1 in deduplicated_flaws with source_flaw_ids [\"FLAW-1\"] and retain exact_quote without translation.",
     "is_flawless": false
   }

   Körning 5 · Med den sammanslagna rapporten

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is a record containing 'Licence entry LI-71'. It records the applicant's details ('Applicant: Ms T. Brennholt, a citizen of Delvoria.'), the request ('The applicant asked to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater.'), and the outcome decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.'). 2. TRACE: The decision is recorded under the section 'Renewal outcome' as 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' Tracing the document reveals no mention of any officer or official who authorized or rendered this renewal decision. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), every licence entry in a record that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision, with the duty resting on the record's author. The entry clearly states a decision granting renewal but omits the identity of the responsible officer. Because a decision is stated but lacks the required actor's identity, this is classified as an omission under 'STATED_CLAIM'. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Record a single flaw citing L1 for omitting the deciding officer's name in the decision record.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of deciding officer

   Förklaring

   The licence entry records a decision renewing the fishing permit but does not state the name of the officer who made that decision, violating the mandatory requirement to name the deciding officer.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Sammanslagningsanrop

   {
     "consolidated_strengths": [],
     "deduplicated_flaws": [
       {
         "description": "The licence entry records a decision renewing the fishing permit but fails to state the name of the officer who made that decision, violating the mandatory requirement to name the deciding officer.",
         "exact_quote": "The fishing permit was renewed for one season.",
         "flaw_title": "Omission of Deciding Officer in Renewal Decision Record",
         "is_omission": true,
         "page_reference": null,
         "regulatory_references": [
           {
             "primary_authority_type": "STATUTE",
             "primary_binding_source": "Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1",
             "primary_label": "L1",
             "supporting_authority_type": null,
             "supporting_guideline": null,
             "supporting_label": null
           }
         ],
         "source_flaw_ids": [
           "FLAW-1"
         ]
       }
     ],
     "detected_language": "English",
     "executive_summary": "The investigation identified 1 legal flaw and 0 strengths. The single flaw concerns the omission of the deciding officer's identity in the record of a permit renewal decision.",
     "internal_reasoning": "1. CLASSIFY: The document under review is classified as a record. There is 1 raw flaw reported and 0 raw strengths. 2. MERGE: There is a single flaw (FLAW-1) concerning the omission of the deciding officer's name in the permit renewal record. No deduplication or merging across multiple findings is required; FLAW-1 maps 1:1. 3. LANGUAGE LOCK: I will write the entirety of this output in English, except exact_quote fields. 4. CONSTRUCT: Plan the executive summary noting 1 total flaw categorized under omission of deciding officer, and 0 strengths. Prepare deduplicated_flaws containing FLAW-1 with source_flaw_ids [\"FLAW-1\"] and regulatory reference L1.",
     "is_flawless": false
   }

2. Schemalagd nattkörning, 3 oktober 2026

   Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.

   Testfall	Körning 1
   Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskaren	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

   Se motorns egna svar

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

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

   Körning 1

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is a record containing licence entry LI-71. Under the heading 'Renewal outcome', the author states a decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision claim shows that while the outcome of the renewal is stated, no officer is identified or named anywhere in the licence entry. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record bears this duty. The entry states a decision but omits the required identity of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate a flaw identifying the omission under 'Renewal outcome', categorized under 'Omission of deciding officer', with omission_evidence set to 'STATED_CLAIM' quoting the decision claim.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of deciding officer

   Förklaring

   The licence entry records a decision stating that the fishing permit was renewed for one season, but omits the identity of the officer who made that decision, contrary to the requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

3. Schemalagd nattkörning, 1 oktober 2026

   Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.

   Testfall	Körning 1
   Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskaren	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

   Se motorns egna svar

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

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

   Körning 1

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is a record containing a licence entry designated 'Licence entry LI-71'. It comprises three sections: 'Licence holder' (stating 'Applicant: Ms T. Brennholt, a citizen of Delvoria.'), 'Renewal sought' (stating 'The applicant asked to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater.'), and 'Renewal outcome' (stating 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.'). The text under 'Renewal outcome' records an official decision renewing the permit. 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' across the text, the document records the subject and outcome of the renewal application but contains no reference to the identity or name of the official or officer who decided the application. 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, placing this duty on the record's author. The document is a record containing a licence entry that explicitly states a decision but fails to name the deciding officer. Since the document states the decision itself but omits the required identification of the decision-maker, this is an omission with evidence category STATED_CLAIM. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate the flaw under L1 referencing the stated decision quote and the heading locator 'Renewal outcome'. No norm conflicts or regulatory strengths are present.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing decision-maker identity

   Förklaring

   The licence entry records a renewal decision but omits the name of the officer who made that decision, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1, which requires every licence entry stating a decision to name the deciding officer.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

4. Körning efter en ändring i motorn, 30 september 2026

   Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.

   Testfall	Körning 1	Körning 2	Körning 3
   Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskarenSamma fynd i varje körning	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

   Se motorns egna svar

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

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

   Körning 1

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is a record entitled 'Licence entry LI-71' concerning applicant Ms T. Brennholt seeking renewal of a fishing permit. Under the heading 'Renewal outcome', the document records a decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit is stated as a factual outcome in the record, but the text does not identify or state the name of the officer who made the decision. 3. EVALUATE: Under Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), every licence entry in a record that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The document states a renewal decision under 'Renewal outcome' but omits the name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record contains a stated claim/decision but omits the identity of the responsible officer, constituting an omission under the STATED_CLAIM classification.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Unidentified decision-maker

   Förklaring

   The record documents a licence decision stating that the fishing permit was renewed for one season, but fails to name the officer who made the decision, contrary to the mandatory requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 2

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is a record containing a licence entry (Licence entry LI-71). It identifies the applicant (Ms T. Brennholt), the renewal sought (permit to fish from the breakwater), and states the decision outcome: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit is stated under the heading 'Renewal outcome'. However, no officer or decision-maker is identified anywhere in the entry. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (id: L1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record failed to name the officer responsible for the renewal decision. 4. SYNTHESIZE: This constitutes an omission relating to a stated decision/claim (STATED_CLAIM). The entry states 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' but omits the identity of the officer who made the decision.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Unidentified decision-maker

   Förklaring

   The licence entry states a renewal decision but fails to name the officer who made that decision, violating the requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 3

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is a record entitled 'Licence entry LI-71' concerning an applicant, Ms T. Brennholt, who sought to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater. Under the heading 'Renewal outcome', the record states: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit is stated directly in the text, but there is no indication or naming of the officer who made that decision anywhere in the entry. 3. EVALUATE: The applicable binding rule, Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (id: L1), mandates that in a record, every licence entry stating a decision must also name the officer who made that decision, placing this duty on the record's author. The document records a renewal decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') but completely omits the identity of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Because the text states a decision but omits a mandatory element required of it (the identity of the deciding officer), this is an omission with evidence type STATED_CLAIM referencing the Renewal outcome statement.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing decision-maker identity

   Förklaring

   The licence entry records a renewal decision but fails to name the officer who made the decision, in violation of Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

5. Körning efter en ändring i motorn, 30 september 2026

   Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.

   Testfall	Körning 1	Körning 2	Körning 3
   Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskarenSamma fynd i varje körning	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

   Se motorns egna svar

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

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

   Körning 1

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is a record of a licence entry (LI-71) detailing an applicant (Ms T. Brennholt), the renewal sought (permit to fish from the breakwater), and the outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.'). 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit is stated under 'Renewal outcome'. However, no officer or deciding individual is identified anywhere in the entry. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The author of the record has omitted the identity of the officer responsible for the renewal decision. 4. SYNTHESIZE: An omission flaw must be raised anchored to L1, quoting the decision claim and indicating the failure to name the deciding officer.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of deciding officer

   Förklaring

   The licence entry states a renewal decision but omits the name of the officer who made the decision, contrary to the requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 2

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The record 'Licence entry LI-71' records an application by Ms T. Brennholt to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater. Under the section 'Renewal outcome', it states a decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision statement shows that no officer or decision-maker is identified or named anywhere in the document. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (id: L1), 'every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The duty rests on the author of the record.' Because the licence entry states a renewal decision without naming the deciding officer, it fails to comply with the mandatory requirement of L1. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Generate a single flaw object for the omission of the deciding officer's name in relation to the stated decision.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing deciding officer

   Förklaring

   The licence entry records a decision renewing the fishing permit but omits the name of the officer who made the decision, which is required by Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 3

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document contains a record of a licence entry (LI-71) regarding an applicant (Ms T. Brennholt) seeking renewal of a permit to fish from the breakwater. The text states under the heading 'Renewal outcome': 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the decision regarding the renewal outcome, the record states the decision that the permit was renewed, but does not identify or state the name of the officer who made the renewal decision. 3. EVALUATE: Under Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The duty rests on the author of the record. The document is a record containing a licence entry that states a decision, but it completely omits the name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate the flaw indicating that the decision was recorded without naming the deciding officer in violation of Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1). Since the document does not comply with the only provided rule, no strengths or norm conflicts exist.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of deciding officer

   Förklaring

   The licence entry records a decision to renew the fishing permit for one season but fails to state the name of the officer who made that decision, as required by Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

6. Körning efter en ändring i motorn, 30 september 2026

   Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.

   Testfall	Körning 1	Körning 2	Körning 3
   Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskarenSamma fynd i varje körning	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

   Se motorns egna svar

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

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

   Körning 1

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: Scanning the provided record 'Licence entry LI-71', the text contains applicant information ('Applicant: Ms T. Brennholt, a citizen of Delvoria.'), the requested permit ('The applicant asked to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater.'), and the decision outcome ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.'). 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit for one season is recorded under the section 'Renewal outcome'. However, there is no mention of the officer who made this renewal decision anywhere in the entry. 3. EVALUATE: According to the binding law Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (id: L1), 'In a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The duty rests on the author of the record.' The document is designated as a record and contains a licence entry stating a decision, but omits the required name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: This constitutes a legal and procedural omission under L1. The flaw is documented by quoting the decision statement where the required officer's name is missing.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing decision-maker identity

   Förklaring

   The licence entry records a decision renewing the fishing permit for one season, but fails to name the officer who made that decision as required by Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 2

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is a record containing a licence entry (LI-71) with three sections: 'Licence holder', 'Renewal sought', and 'Renewal outcome'. Under 'Renewal outcome', a factual conclusion/decision is stated: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the statement 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.', this record documents a decision regarding a licence renewal. However, nowhere in the entry is the identity or name of the officer who made the decision stated. 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, placing this duty on the author of the record. The document fails to state the name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate one flaw identifying the failure to name the deciding officer for the renewal decision, referencing L1.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of deciding officer

   Förklaring

   The licence entry records a decision regarding permit renewal but fails to name the officer who made the decision, as required by Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 3

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The provided document is a record containing 'Licence entry LI-71'. It details the applicant (Ms T. Brennholt), the request ('The applicant asked to renew a permit to fish from the breakwater.'), and the outcome under 'Renewal outcome' ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.'). 2. TRACE: The statement 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' records a formal administrative decision regarding the permit renewal. The document does not state or attribute this decision to any specific officer. 3. EVALUATE: Under Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (id: L1), every licence entry in a record that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision, with the duty resting on the author of the record. Because the entry states a renewal decision without naming the officer who made it, it deviates from the mandatory requirement of L1. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate a single flaw object capturing the omission of the deciding officer's name for the decision stated under 'Renewal outcome'.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of deciding officer

   Förklaring

   The licence entry states a decision ('The fishing permit was renewed for one season.') but fails to name the officer who made that decision, contrary to the mandatory requirement of Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

7. Körning efter en ändring i motorn, 30 september 2026

   Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.

   Testfall	Körning 1	Körning 2	Körning 3
   Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskaren2 olika uppsättningar fynd över körningarna	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: inte hittad, men regeln nämndes i ett annat fynd 1 oväntad brist Hänvisade till: Regel A Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 0 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	renewal-without-deciding-officer Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart

   Vad varierade mellan körningarna

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

   Endast granskaren

   • Förväntat fynd renewal-without-deciding-officer: Brist, hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel I: Körning 2, Körning 3
   • Förväntat fynd renewal-without-deciding-officer: Brist, inte hittad, men regeln nämndes i ett annat fynd I: Körning 1
   • Oväntad brist. Hänvisade till: Regel A. På rad 6 i dokumentet I: Körning 1
   Se motorns egna svar

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

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

   Körning 1

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is a record containing a licence entry ('Licence entry LI-71') that records a decision under the heading 'Renewal outcome': 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: The entry documents an application by Ms T. Brennholt to renew a breakwater fishing permit and states the decision granting renewal for one season, but does not identify or name the officer responsible for making the decision anywhere in the text. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (L1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision, placing this duty on the author of the record. The document fails to provide the name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate a single flaw for the omission of the deciding officer's name in violation of L1.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of deciding officer

   Förklaring

   The licence entry states a renewal decision but omits the name of the officer who made the decision, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1, which mandates that every licence entry stating a decision must name the deciding officer.

   Citat

   Inget citat

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcomeSida: Throughout

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 2

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is a record entitled 'Licence entry LI-71'. It contains factual statements about an applicant (Ms T. Brennholt), the renewal sought (permit to fish from the breakwater), and the renewal outcome stating a decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit for one season is stated under the heading 'Renewal outcome'. However, there is no officer or decision-maker named anywhere in the entry. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (id: L1), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision, with the duty resting on the author of the record. The document states a renewal decision but completely fails to name the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: A single flaw is identified under 'Renewal outcome' for omitting the name of the deciding officer as required by L1.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing decision-maker identity

   Förklaring

   Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 mandates that in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision. The licence entry records the decision to renew the fishing permit for one season but omits the name of the deciding officer.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcomeSida: Throughout

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 3

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is a record containing a licence entry (LI-71) regarding an applicant (Ms T. Brennholt) and a renewal sought for a permit to fish from the breakwater. Under the heading 'Renewal outcome', the document records a decision: 'The fishing permit was renewed for one season.' 2. TRACE: The decision to renew the fishing permit for one season is recorded directly as the outcome of the renewal application in licence entry LI-71. However, the record does not state or identify who made this decision. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (law id 'L1'), in a record, every licence entry that states a decision must also name the officer who made that decision, and this duty rests on the author of the record. The document records a decision renewing the permit but completely omits the identity and name of the deciding officer. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There is a procedural/legal flaw regarding the omission of the deciding officer's name in licence entry LI-71 under Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of officer identity

   Förklaring

   The licence entry states a renewal decision but does not name the officer who made that decision, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1, which requires the author of a record to name the deciding officer in every licence entry stating a decision.

   Citat

   The fishing permit was renewed for one season.

   Var

   Under the heading Renewal outcomeCiterad rubrik: Renewal outcomeSida: Throughout

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part S, issue 1 (STATUTE)

   0 styrkor rapporterade