Testfall · A duty that arises only from a refusal, with and without that refusal
request-granted
- Grupp
- regression-conditional-duty · Gruppversion 2
- Testsvit
- Testsvit controlled-regression, version 1
- Evidensklass
- REGRESSION
The engine reports missing grounds when the entry says a request was refused, and reports nothing when the same request was granted.
Testdokumenten, reglerna och facit visas på engelska, det språk de skrevs på.
Vad det här testfallet ändrar
- Faktor
- outcome of the mooring request
- Nivå
- granted
- Jämförs med
- request-refusedÄndringen ska ändra svaret. Ett textställe i dokumentet skiljer sig mellan de två.
The request is granted, so the duty is never triggered.
Dokumentet motorn fick
Exakt den text motorn fick, rad för rad.
- Allocation entry AL-115
- Mooring request
- The rowing club asked for a second mooring at the west quay.
- Allocation outcome
- The request for a second mooring was granted.
- Notice to the club
- The club secretary was sent the outcome by letter.
Reglerna motorn fick
Varje regel visas under en neutral beteckning i stället för sitt interna namn.
Regel A
Grounds for refusing a request
Källa: Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1
In a record, every allocation entry that says a request was refused must also say which requirement the request failed to meet. The duty rests on the author of the record.
Facit
Skrevs ner innan motorn kördes. request-granted-truth
The request was granted, so the duty never arises and 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
- Villkoret som utlöser skyldigheten inträffade inte. CONDITION_NOT_TRIGGERED
Förbjudna fynd
Fel svar, nedskrivna i förväg.
- BristUtelämnandeFynd grounds-demanded-for-a-grant
Demanding grounds for a refusal the entry does not state is the rule applied past its trigger.
- Ska förankras i
The request for a second mooring was granted.
- 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 facitGemini, 5 oktober 2026Punkt i läsarens underlag item-02
Läsaren rapporterade inget fynd.
Varför inget ska rapporteras Villkoret som utlöser skyldigheten inträffade inte. CONDITION_NOT_TRIGGERED
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.
Ingen kritisk granskning av det här facit finns registrerad.
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 Claude Project thread session for #3077
- 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. Version 2 corrects version 1 for #3077: rule A no longer says that an entry granting the request owes no statement, so the granted side is clean because the duty's trigger, a refusal, is absent, not because the rule writes the exemption out.
Granskning
Skrivna av en AI-modellsession: Claude.
Blind läsning, Gemini, 5 oktober 2026: 2 av 2 överens
registrerat som gemini-2.5-pro (Vertex europe-west1), blind read
Ingen oenighet med facit.
Se vad den blinda läsaren svarade i varje testfall
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
- ec682e35f7398e7f20f8322766220d9584c2bcf2b1cd7a8810852b0698877180
- Dokumentmall
- 2c517ff4edf9080f50bac17a865f6c6689cfee99fea5ea79078ad54edc80af04
- Regel A
- 87e2bd35523ebe653cada223d5a40ae15633e96ad1338963002a418b78ad53be
Resultat i publicerade körningar
Senaste först. Varje kolumn är en körning av det här testfallet.
Mätkörning med releasedesignen, ingen release,
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 Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart
Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades
Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart
Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades
Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart
Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades
Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart
Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades
Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 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: Allocation entry AL-115 documents a request from the rowing club for a second mooring at the west quay, noting that the request was granted and notice of the outcome was sent to the club secretary. 2. TRACE: The record indicates an 'Allocation outcome' stating: 'The request for a second mooring was granted.' 3. EVALUATE: Under Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 ('Grounds for refusing a request'), only an allocation entry that refuses a request is required to state which requirement the request failed to meet; entries granting a request owe no such statement. As this entry grants the request, no statement of unmet requirements is required. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document fully complies with the supplied legal framework. There are no flaws, norm conflicts, or mandated procedural actions breached.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Körning 2
Språk som motorn angav: English
Motorns resonemang
1. SCAN: The document contains an allocation entry (AL-115) regarding a mooring request made by the rowing club for a second mooring at the west quay. It records the allocation outcome that the request was granted, and notes that notice of the outcome was sent to the club secretary by letter. 2. TRACE: The claim and outcome in the record state that the request was granted ('The request for a second mooring was granted.'). 3. EVALUATE: Under Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (id="L1"), an allocation entry in a record that refuses a request must state which requirement the request failed to meet, but an allocation entry that grants the request owes no such statement. In this record, the request was granted rather than refused, so no requirement failure statement is owed. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document complies fully with the provided legal framework. There are no legal flaws, norm conflicts, or specific procedural strengths to report.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Körning 3
Språk som motorn angav: English
Motorns resonemang
1. SCAN: The document is an allocation record (Allocation entry AL-115) concerning a mooring request from a rowing club. It records that the rowing club asked for a second mooring at the west quay, that the request for a second mooring was granted, and that notice of the outcome was sent to the club secretary by letter. 2. TRACE: The applicable binding rule is Law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1, 'Grounds for refusing a request'). 3. EVALUATE: Law L1 mandates that in a record, every allocation entry that says a request was refused must specify which requirement the request failed to meet, whereas an entry granting the request owes no such statement. In this document, the request was granted ('The request for a second mooring was granted.'). Therefore, no grounds or failed requirements are required to be articulated. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies fully with Law L1. There are no statutory omissions, violations, or norm conflicts.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Körning 4
Språk som motorn angav: English
Motorns resonemang
1. SCAN: The document is an allocation record (AL-115) recording a request from the rowing club for a second mooring at the west quay, stating the outcome that the request was granted, and noting that the club secretary was sent the outcome by letter. 2. TRACE: The statements in the record document the receipt of the request, the positive decision ('The request for a second mooring was granted'), and notification. 3. EVALUATE: According to the legal framework under L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1, 'Grounds for refusing a request'), every allocation entry in a record that says a request was refused must state which requirement the request failed to meet. However, L1 explicitly establishes that an allocation entry that grants the request owes no such statement. Here, the allocation entry granted the request. Thus, no statement of failed requirements is legally required. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies with the applicable binding rule. There are no procedural or legal flaws, no norm conflicts, and no distinct affirmative statutory duties triggering specific strength findings.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Körning 5
Språk som motorn angav: English
Motorns resonemang
1. SCAN: The document is an allocation record (AL-115) regarding a mooring request made by a rowing club for a second mooring at the west quay. Under 'Allocation outcome', it records that 'The request for a second mooring was granted.' Under 'Notice to the club', it records that notice was sent by letter. 2. TRACE: The document records an approval/granting of the mooring request. 3. EVALUATE: The sole binding provision in the legal framework is Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (Grounds for refusing a request, id='L1'). L1 requires that every allocation entry in a record that refuses a request must state which requirement the request failed to meet, but explicitly notes that an allocation entry granting the request owes no such statement. Because the allocation outcome in AL-115 granted the request, no statement of failed requirements was required. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no legal or procedural deviations or omissions under the provided legal framework. No norm conflicts exist.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Schemalagd nattkörning,
Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången. Testfall Körning 1 Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskaren Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 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 'Allocation entry AL-115' contains an allocation entry regarding a mooring request from a rowing club for a second mooring at the west quay. Under 'Allocation outcome', the text states: 'The request for a second mooring was granted.' Under 'Notice to the club', it notes that notice of the outcome was sent to the club secretary by letter. 2. TRACE: Tracing the outcome statement reveals that the request was approved ('granted'), not refused. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluating this against the sole provision in the legal framework, Law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1, 'Grounds for refusing a request'), which specifies that 'every allocation entry that says a request was refused must also say which requirement the request failed to meet' while '[a]n allocation entry that grants the request owes no such statement.' Because this allocation entry granted the request, no statement regarding unmet requirements is mandated. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies with Law L1 as no statement of unmet requirements is required for granted requests. There are no procedural deviations, omissions, or norm conflicts present.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Schemalagd nattkörning,
Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången. Testfall Körning 1 Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskaren Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 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 an allocation entry (AL-115) recording a mooring request by a rowing club for a second mooring at the west quay, an allocation outcome stating that the request was granted, and a notice indicating that the club secretary was notified of the outcome by letter. 2. TRACE: The document's factual claims include the request from the rowing club, the decision granting the mooring request, and the dispatch of notice to the club secretary. 3. EVALUATE: Under L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1, 'Grounds for refusing a request'), every allocation entry in a record that refuses a request must state the specific requirement the request failed to meet. However, L1 explicitly specifies that an allocation entry granting a request owes no such statement. In this entry, the request was granted ('The request for a second mooring was granted.'). Therefore, no statement of failed requirements was required under L1. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies with all applicable binding provisions in the provided legal framework. No procedural or legal flaws are identified.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Körning efter en ändring i motorn,
Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången. Testfall Körning 1 Körning 2 Körning 3 Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskarenSamma fynd i varje körning Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart
Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades
Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart
Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades
Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart
Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades
Se motorns egna svar
Det här är motorns egna svar, på den engelska den skrev dem, visade precis som de kom tillbaka och oredigerade. Upprepningarna står sida vid sida, så att du själv kan se hur formuleringarna varierar även när det poängsatta resultatet är detsamma.
System- och användarprompterna som motorn fick publiceras inte: de hör till produkten, inte till testet. Dokumentet, reglerna och instruktionen som testet gav visas ovan.
Körning 1
Språk som motorn angav: English
Motorns resonemang
1. SCAN: Identify all causal claims, factual conclusions, and diagnostic statements made by the investigator in the text. - The document records an allocation entry (AL-115) regarding a mooring request by a rowing club for a second mooring at the west quay. - The outcome recorded is: 'The request for a second mooring was granted.' - The notice sent is recorded: 'The club secretary was sent the outcome by letter.' 2. TRACE: Trace each claim's origin and context. - The entry documents the granting of a mooring request. 3. EVALUATE: Compare the record against the provided legal framework. - Law L1 ('Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1', 'Grounds for refusing a request') states: 'In a record, every allocation entry that says a request was refused must also say which requirement the request failed to meet. An allocation entry that grants the request owes no such statement. The duty rests on the author of the record.' - The allocation entry granted the request rather than refusing it. Therefore, no statement of failed requirements is legally required. - No other binding laws or guidelines are provided. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate findings. - There are no legal flaws or procedural deviations. The document fully complies with the provided framework. - No norm conflicts exist. - No specific positive procedural duty was mandated and executed to record as an affirmative procedural strength.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Körning 2
Språk som motorn angav: English
Motorns resonemang
1. SCAN: Identified statements in the record: The rowing club requested a second mooring at the west quay; the allocation outcome was granted; notice of the outcome was sent to the club secretary by letter. 2. TRACE: Traced the allocation outcome stating that the request was granted under the heading 'Allocation outcome'. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated against Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (Grounds for refusing a request, L1). L1 requires that every allocation entry stating a request was refused must also specify which requirement the request failed to meet, while an allocation entry granting the request owes no such statement. Since the allocation entry granted the request, no statement of failed requirements is required under L1. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies with all provided legal requirements. No legal flaws or norm conflicts are present.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Körning 3
Språk som motorn angav: English
Motorns resonemang
1. SCAN: Scanned the document 'Allocation entry AL-115'. The record states that the rowing club requested a second mooring at the west quay, that the request for a second mooring was granted, and that notice was sent by letter to the club secretary. 2. TRACE: The allocation outcome indicates that the request was granted ('The request for a second mooring was granted.'). 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated against Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (Grounds for refusing a request, L1), which requires an allocation entry to state which requirement the request failed to meet only when a request was refused, and explicitly notes that an entry granting the request owes no such statement. Because the request in AL-115 was granted, no statement of failed requirements is required. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies fully with the provided rule. No flaws, omissions, or norm conflicts are identified.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Körning efter en ändring i motorn,
Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången. Testfall Körning 1 Körning 2 Körning 3 Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskarenSamma fynd i varje körning Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart
Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades
Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart
Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades
Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 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 an allocation record titled 'Allocation entry AL-115'. It contains a request from a rowing club for a second mooring at the west quay, records the outcome as granted ('The request for a second mooring was granted.'), and notes that notice was sent by letter to the club secretary. 2. TRACE: The allocation entry records that the mooring request was granted. 3. EVALUATE: Under Law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1, 'Grounds for refusing a request'), an allocation entry in a record that refuses a request must state which requirement the request failed to meet, while an allocation entry that grants the request owes no such statement. Since the request in Allocation entry AL-115 was granted, no statement of failed requirements is owed. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document fully satisfies the requirements of the provided legal framework. No procedural or legal flaws are present.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Körning 2
Språk som motorn angav: English
Motorns resonemang
1. SCAN: The document contains an allocation entry (AL-115) detailing a mooring request submitted by a rowing club for a second mooring at the west quay. The outcome recorded is that the request was granted, and notice was sent to the club secretary by letter. 2. TRACE: The document explicitly records the outcome as 'The request for a second mooring was granted.' 3. EVALUATE: Under L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1), an allocation entry that states a request was refused must specify which requirement the request failed to meet. However, L1 explicitly provides that an allocation entry that grants the request owes no such statement. Because the request in AL-115 was granted, no requirement statement was necessary. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies fully with the provided rule; there are no procedural or legal flaws, no norm conflicts, and no specific affirmative duties requiring documentation as a procedural strength.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Körning 3
Språk som motorn angav: English
Motorns resonemang
1. SCAN: Identify all causal claims, factual conclusions, and diagnostic statements in the document. The document contains Allocation entry AL-115, recording that the rowing club requested a second mooring at the west quay, that the request was granted, and that the club secretary was notified by letter. 2. TRACE: Tracing the outcome, the entry records an allocation outcome granting the request: 'The request for a second mooring was granted.' 3. EVALUATE: Compare against the legal framework (Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1, under <law id="L1">). The rule requires that every allocation entry stating a request was refused must also specify the requirement the request failed to meet, whereas an entry granting the request owes no such statement. Since the request was granted, no statement of failed requirements is mandated. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies fully with the provided legal rule. There are no procedural or legal flaws, no norm conflicts, and no specific positive procedural mandates violated.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Körning efter en ändring i motorn,
Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången. Testfall Körning 1 Körning 2 Körning 3 Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskarenSamma fynd i varje körning Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart
Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades
Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart
Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades
Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 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 an allocation entry (AL-115) recording a mooring request from the rowing club for a second mooring at the west quay, noting that the request was granted, and that notice was sent to the club secretary by letter. 2. TRACE: The allocation outcome indicates that the request was granted rather than refused. 3. EVALUATE: Under L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1), an allocation entry that says a request was refused must specify which requirement the request failed to meet; however, an allocation entry that grants the request owes no such statement. Since the request in AL-115 was granted, no statement of failed requirements is legally required. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There are no deviations or violations of the provided legal framework. No procedural flaws or conflicts are identified.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Körning 2
Språk som motorn angav: English
Motorns resonemang
1. SCAN: Identified the statements and outcomes in the document: (a) 'Allocation entry AL-115', (b) 'The rowing club asked for a second mooring at the west quay', (c) 'The request for a second mooring was granted', and (d) 'The club secretary was sent the outcome by letter'. 2. TRACE: Traced the allocation decision to the allocation entry AL-115, where the outcome specifies that the mooring request was granted. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated the document against the single binding provision provided, Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (id: L1). L1 requires that every allocation entry stating a request was refused must identify the failed requirement, but explicitly provides that an allocation entry granting the request owes no such statement. Because the request was granted rather than refused, no statement of failed requirements is required. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document fully complies with the provided legal framework. No procedural or legal flaws, norm conflicts, or specific procedural compliance strengths are present.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Körning 3
Språk som motorn angav: English
Motorns resonemang
1. SCAN: The document is a record containing allocation entry AL-115, which notes a mooring request by a rowing club for a second mooring at the west quay, records that the allocation outcome was granted ('The request for a second mooring was granted.'), and notes that notice was sent to the club secretary by letter. 2. TRACE: Tracing the outcome statement, the record author notes that the request was granted. 3. EVALUATE: Under the governing legal framework (Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1, ID: L1), an allocation entry is required to state which requirement was not met only when a request is refused. The rule explicitly states that an allocation entry granting a request owes no such statement. Because the request in AL-115 was granted, no statement of unmet requirements was required. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The record complies with the applicable framework. There are no procedural deviations or legal flaws, no norm conflicts, and no affirmative mandated procedures requiring citation as strengths.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Körning efter en ändring i motorn,
Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången. Testfall Körning 1 Körning 2 Körning 3 Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskarenSamma fynd i varje körning Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart
Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades
Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart
Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades
Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart
Rent testfall: godkänt, ingen brist rapporterades
Se motorns egna svar
Det här är motorns egna svar, på den engelska den skrev dem, visade precis som de kom tillbaka och oredigerade. Upprepningarna står sida vid sida, så att du själv kan se hur formuleringarna varierar även när det poängsatta resultatet är detsamma.
System- och användarprompterna som motorn fick publiceras inte: de hör till produkten, inte till testet. Dokumentet, reglerna och instruktionen som testet gav visas ovan.
Körning 1
Språk som motorn angav: English
Motorns resonemang
1. SCAN: Scanned the document 'Allocation entry AL-115'. The text records a mooring request from a rowing club asking for a second mooring at the west quay, records the allocation outcome that the request for a second mooring was granted, and notes that notice was sent to the club secretary by letter. 2. TRACE: Traced the outcome statement 'The request for a second mooring was granted.' to the decision recorded in the allocation entry. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated the text against the sole binding legal source provided, Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (id: L1). L1 provides that every allocation entry in a record that says a request was refused must state which requirement the request failed to meet, whereas an allocation entry that grants the request owes no such statement. In this record, the request was granted rather than refused. Therefore, no statement of failed requirements is owed, and the document is fully compliant with the rule. 4. SYNTHESIZE: No legal flaws or omissions are present under the provided legal framework. No norm conflicts exist.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Körning 2
Språk som motorn angav: English
Motorns resonemang
1. SCAN: The document is an allocation record (AL-115) documenting a request by a rowing club for a second mooring at the west quay, noting that the request was granted, and recording that notice of the outcome was sent to the club secretary by letter. 2. TRACE: The entry records a successful application resulting in a grant rather than a refusal. 3. EVALUATE: Under Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 ('Grounds for refusing a request'), an obligation to state which requirement a request failed to meet applies only when an allocation entry records that a request was refused. The rule explicitly specifies that an allocation entry granting the request owes no such statement. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document records the granting of the mooring request and contains no refusal. Consequently, no statement of unmet requirements is required, and the document is in full compliance with the provided legal framework.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Körning 3
Språk som motorn angav: English
Motorns resonemang
1. SCAN: The document is an allocation record (Allocation entry AL-115) concerning a mooring request by a rowing club. The record notes that the rowing club requested a second mooring at the west quay, the request was granted, and notice of the outcome was sent to the club secretary by letter. 2. TRACE: The document's outcome states: 'The request for a second mooring was granted.' 3. EVALUATE: The single applicable binding law is L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1), which stipulates that in a record, an allocation entry stating that a request was refused must state which requirement the request failed to meet, but an allocation entry that grants the request owes no such statement. Here, the request was granted, meaning no statement of failed requirements is required under L1. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The document is fully compliant with the provided legal framework. There are no flaws, no norm conflicts, and no distinct procedural strengths requiring specific statutory documentation.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Kontroll: motorn körd med fel regler
Visas skild från resultaten. Motorn fick ett annat falls regler, så varje fynd nedan är ett fynd mot regler som inte gäller det här dokumentet.
Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången. Testfall Körning 1 Bedömt mot version 2Endast granskaren Inget fynd förväntas
Inga fynd utöver facit
Inget förbjudet fynd
Citat: 0 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: Analyzed the document 'Allocation entry AL-115'. The text details a mooring request from a rowing club at the west quay, records the allocation outcome granting the request, and notes that notice was sent to the club secretary by letter. 2. TRACE: Traced the contents against the provided legal framework. Law L1 ('Entry Practice Schedule, part N, issue 1') requires that in a record, every sampling entry reporting a sample drawn from open water must state the depth at which the sample was drawn. 3. EVALUATE: The document is an allocation record regarding mooring berths and does not contain any sampling entries or report any samples drawn from open water. Therefore, the mandatory condition of Law L1 is not triggered, and no procedural or regulatory deviations exist. 4. SYNTHESIZE: As no violations of the provided legal framework occurred and no specific procedural requirement from the provided snippet directly mandates the actions taken, zero flaws and zero strengths are returned.
0 brister rapporterade
0 styrkor rapporterade
Tidigare versioner av det här testfallet
En rättad grupp publiceras bredvid den version som tidigare resultat bedömdes mot.
Gruppversion 1
Vad det här testfallet ändrar
- Faktor
- outcome of the mooring request
- Nivå
- granted
- Jämförs med
- request-refusedÄndringen ska ändra svaret. Ett textställe i dokumentet skiljer sig mellan de två.
The request is granted, so the duty is never triggered.
Dokumentet motorn fick
Exakt den text motorn fick, rad för rad.
- Allocation entry AL-115
- Mooring request
- The rowing club asked for a second mooring at the west quay.
- Allocation outcome
- The request for a second mooring was granted.
- Notice to the club
- The club secretary was sent the outcome by letter.
Reglerna motorn fick
Varje regel visas under en neutral beteckning i stället för sitt interna namn.
Regel A
Grounds for refusing a request
Källa: Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1
In a record, every allocation entry that says a request was refused must also say which requirement the request failed to meet. An allocation entry that grants the request owes no such statement. The duty rests on the author of the record.
Facit
Skrevs ner innan motorn kördes. request-granted-truth
The request was granted, so the duty never arises and 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
- Villkoret som utlöser skyldigheten inträffade inte. CONDITION_NOT_TRIGGERED
Förbjudna fynd
Fel svar, nedskrivna i förväg.
- BristUtelämnandeFynd grounds-demanded-for-a-grant
Demanding grounds for a refusal the entry does not state is the rule applied past its trigger.
- Ska förankras i
The request for a second mooring was granted.
- 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-07
Läsaren rapporterade inget fynd.
Varför inget ska rapporteras Villkoret som utlöser skyldigheten inträffade inte. CONDITION_NOT_TRIGGERED
- Överens med facitGemini, 4 oktober 2026Punkt i läsarens underlag item-10
Läsaren rapporterade inget fynd.
Varför inget ska rapporteras Villkoret som utlöser skyldigheten inträffade inte. CONDITION_NOT_TRIGGERED
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 svagtSvårighetRegel Ap1 · request-granted-truth
Rule A's second sentence says outright that "An allocation entry that grants the request owes no such statement." The clean variant is the very case that sentence names, so an engine passes it by reading an explicit exemption, not by working out that a conditional duty is untriggered, which is what the family's trigger-discrimination tag claims.
Godtagen, rättelse väntar · rättelsen följs upp i #3077
The suite's only untriggered-condition case should be decided by the condition. The family is corrected under a new version whose rule names no exempt case.
- Invändning besvaradSvårighetRegel Ap3 · refusal-trigger
Gäller hela gruppen av fall
The flawed side's "was refused" repeats rule A's "says a request was refused" word for word.
Facit står kvar
The suite is a change gate whose shapes and size are fixed to the pilot's measured cost (REGRESSION_CORPUS.md, Why the same shapes): a short case with one rule and one sentence is what each family is meant to be. Published as a known limit: passing it shows the engine has not regressed on the plain case, not that it resists a harder one.
Testets instruktion till granskaren
Testkonfigurationen gav AI-granskaren den här instruktionen vid sidan av reglerna. Det är testets egen instruktion. Produktionens systemprompt visas inte.
You read one document and apply only the rules supplied to you in the legal framework, exactly as each rule is written. Report every place where the document does not meet a supplied rule, and apply what a supplied rule says about how a record that meets it is to be recorded. Quote each passage exactly as it appears. Do not apply a rule that was not supplied, and do not rely on any knowledge of a legal system.Vem som skrev och läste det här testfallet
En AI-modellsession skrev de här testfallen, och en annan AI-modellsession läste dem blint utan att se facit. Ingen människa har granskat dem.
- Skrevs
- , registrerat som Verkstaden implementer (Claude Local), #2323
- Modellfamilj som skrev det
- Claude
- Varför det skrevs
- Authored for #2323 as new REGRESSION material in the outcome shapes of the controlled-pilot suite, sharing none of its text. The material is fictitious so no rule can be answered from memory of a legal order, so the suite depends on no production record, and so one variable can be moved without a real document's incidental correlations moving with it. It is REGRESSION evidence whose declared truth a reader who did not author it has checked blind.
Granskning
Skrivna av en AI-modellsession: Claude.
Blind läsning, Claude, 23 september 2026: 22 av 22 överens
registrerat som Verkstaden orchestrator session (Claude Opus 5.5), blind read
Ingen oenighet med facit.
Se vad den blinda läsaren svarade i varje testfallBlind läsning, Gemini, 4 oktober 2026: 19 av 22 överens
registrerat som gemini-2.5-pro (Vertex europe-west1), blind read
Se vad den blinda läsaren svarade i varje testfall3 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.
Kritisk granskning, Claude, 4 oktober 2026: 1 invändning
registrerat som Claude Project thread session for #3049, adversarial critique
1 oenighet med facit
Punkt p1 (request-granted, request-granted-truth)
KEY_WEAK, DIFFICULTY: Rule A's second sentence says outright that "An allocation entry that grants the request owes no such statement." The clean variant is the very case that sentence names, so an engine passes it by reading an explicit exemption, not by working out that a conditional duty is untriggered, which is what the family's trigger-discrimination tag claims.
Hur den avgjordes
ACCEPTED: The suite's only untriggered-condition case should be decided by the condition. The family is corrected under a new version whose rule names no exempt case. Follow-up #3077.
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
- ec682e35f7398e7f20f8322766220d9584c2bcf2b1cd7a8810852b0698877180
- Dokumentmall
- 2c517ff4edf9080f50bac17a865f6c6689cfee99fea5ea79078ad54edc80af04
- Regel A
- 87e2bd35523ebe653cada223d5a40ae15633e96ad1338963002a418b78ad53be