request-refused

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	refusal-grounds-absent Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	refusal-grounds-absent Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	refusal-grounds-absent Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	refusal-grounds-absent Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	refusal-grounds-absent 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 an allocation entry (AL-115) in a record regarding a mooring request from a rowing club. Under the section 'Allocation outcome', the text states: 'The request for a second mooring was refused.' Under 'Notice to the club', it states: 'The club secretary was sent the outcome by letter.' 2. TRACE: The statement of refusal is made directly by the author of the allocation record under the heading 'Allocation outcome'. However, no accompanying reason, rule, or requirement is stated to explain why the refusal occurred. 3. EVALUATE: According to the binding legal rule in Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (id: L1), 'In a record, every allocation entry that says a request was refused must also say which requirement the request failed to meet.' The author recorded that the request was refused but omitted the specific requirement the request failed to meet. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The entry contains a procedural omission (STATED_CLAIM) under L1 because it records a refusal of a request without identifying the failed requirement.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of failed requirement

   Förklaring

   The allocation entry states that the mooring request was refused but fails to state which requirement the request failed to meet, contrary to the mandatory requirement for refusal entries.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

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

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 2

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: Scanned the document 'Allocation entry AL-115'. The text records a mooring request from the rowing club ('The rowing club asked for a second mooring at the west quay.'), an allocation outcome refusing the request ('The request for a second mooring was refused.'), and a notice sent to the club ('The club secretary was sent the outcome by letter.'). 2. TRACE: The statement of refusal is made under the heading 'Allocation outcome' without any accompanying rationale or mention of criteria. 3. EVALUATE: Under Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (L1), in a record, every allocation entry stating that a request was refused must also state which requirement the request failed to meet. The document records a refusal but omits the requirement that the request failed to satisfy. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The entry violates Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (L1) by omitting the required grounds/failed requirement for the refused request.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of refusal grounds

   Förklaring

   The allocation entry records that the request was refused but omits the mandatory statement specifying which requirement the request failed to meet, as required by Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcome, the refusal is recorded without specifying which requirement the request failed to meet.Citerad rubrik: Allocation outcomeSida: Throughout

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

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

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 3

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is an allocation record (AL-115) concerning a mooring request by the rowing club. It states under 'Allocation outcome' that 'The request for a second mooring was refused.' Under 'Notice to the club', it states that the club secretary was sent the outcome by letter. 2. TRACE: The statement of refusal is made directly by the author of the record under the heading 'Allocation outcome'. 3. EVALUATE: According to Law 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 also state which requirement the request failed to meet. The duty rests on the author. The allocation entry explicitly states that the request was refused but contains no statement of which requirement the request failed to meet. 4. SYNTHESIZE: This constitutes an omission on a stated claim (STATED_CLAIM), as the refusal is recorded but lacks the mandatory specification of the unmet requirement. No other provisions exist in the legal framework, so no norm conflicts or additional strengths can be anchored.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing grounds for refusal

   Förklaring

   The record documents that the request was refused but fails to state which requirement the request failed to meet, violating the mandatory requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

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

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 4

   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, an allocation outcome stating 'The request for a second mooring was refused.', and a notice sent to the club secretary. 2. TRACE: The statement 'The request for a second mooring was refused.' records the refusal of a request within an allocation entry in a record. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (id: L1), in a record, every allocation entry that says a request was refused must also say which requirement the request failed to meet. The entry states that the request was refused but omits any statement specifying which requirement the request failed to meet. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There is one legal flaw regarding the omission of the failed requirement in the refusal decision. There are no procedural strengths grounded in the provided legal framework, and no norm conflicts exist.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing ground for refusal

   Förklaring

   The allocation entry states that the request was refused but omits the mandatory statement of which requirement the request failed to meet, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

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

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 5

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is an allocation entry in a record (AL-115) concerning a mooring request from a rowing club. Under the section 'Allocation outcome', the document states: 'The request for a second mooring was refused.' Under 'Notice to the club', it notes that notice of the outcome was sent by letter. 2. TRACE: The statement of refusal is made by the author of the record under 'Allocation outcome'. However, the document does not specify any reason, criteria, or unmet requirements behind the refusal. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (Grounds for refusing a request) (L1), in a record, every allocation entry that says a request was refused must also state which requirement the request failed to meet. The refusal in allocation entry AL-115 omits this mandatory detail. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate a flaw identifying the omission of the requirement that the request failed to meet, citing binding law L1.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Inadequate reasoning

   Förklaring

   The allocation entry records that the request was refused but fails to state which requirement the request failed to meet, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

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

   0 styrkor rapporterade

2. Schemalagd nattkörning, 3 oktober 2026

   Det här testfallet i varje körning av omgången.

   Testfall	Körning 1
   Bedömt mot version 1Endast granskaren	refusal-grounds-absent 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 an allocation record (Allocation entry AL-115) recording a mooring request by a rowing club and an allocation outcome stating that 'The request for a second mooring was refused.' 2. TRACE: The decision to refuse the request is stated under the heading 'Allocation outcome' without any accompanying explanation or specification of requirements. 3. EVALUATE: According to the binding rule in Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (id: L1), 'every allocation entry that says a request was refused must also say which requirement the request failed to meet.' The entry states that the request was refused but omits the required statement of which requirement was not met. 4. SYNTHESIZE: This constitutes an omission of a required element on a stated decision (STATED_CLAIM). The exact quote is 'The request for a second mooring was refused.' under the heading 'Allocation outcome'. No strengths or norm conflicts are present in the context.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing grounds for refusal

   Förklaring

   The allocation entry indicates that the request was refused but fails to state which requirement the request failed to meet, as required by Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part M, 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	refusal-grounds-absent 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 causal/factual decision in the document: 'The request for a second mooring was refused.' under heading 'Allocation outcome'. 2. TRACE: Traced the refusal decision against the legal framework in context. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated against Law L1 ('Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1', 'Grounds for refusing a request'), which mandates that in a record, every allocation entry stating a request was refused must state which requirement the request failed to meet. The entry records the refusal but omits the required statement of which requirement was not met. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulated one flaw object noting this omission on a stated claim (STATED_CLAIM).

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of requirement failed

   Förklaring

   The record states that the allocation request was refused, but fails to state which requirement the request failed to meet, as required by Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part M, 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	refusal-grounds-absent Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	refusal-grounds-absent Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	refusal-grounds-absent 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 an allocation entry (AL-115) within a record. It records a request from the rowing club for a second mooring at the west quay, states under 'Allocation outcome' that 'The request for a second mooring was refused.', and notes notice was sent by letter. 2. TRACE: Tracing the refusal statement, the entry records the decision to refuse the request but provides no reason or mention of which requirement was not met. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (L1), every allocation entry in a record that states a request was refused must also state which requirement the request failed to meet. The author failed to include this required detail when stating the refusal. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate a flaw identifying the omission of the failed requirement in the stated refusal under 'Allocation outcome'. No strengths or norm conflicts are present.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Inadequate statement of reasons

   Förklaring

   The allocation entry states that the request was refused but fails to state which requirement the request failed to meet, contrary to the mandatory requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

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

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 2

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: Identify all causal claims, factual conclusions, and diagnostic statements in the document. The document is an allocation record (AL-115) containing a mooring request from the rowing club, an allocation outcome stating 'The request for a second mooring was refused.', and a notice sent to the club secretary. 2. TRACE: The decision to refuse the request is stated under 'Allocation outcome'. 3. EVALUATE: Compare against the legal framework. Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (L1) mandates that in a record, every allocation entry stating that a request was refused must also state which requirement the request failed to meet. The record records the refusal ('The request for a second mooring was refused.') but completely fails to state which requirement was not met. This is a stated claim that omits a required element (STATED_CLAIM). 4. SYNTHESIZE: Report the failure to state the failed requirement as an omission under L1.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing grounds for refusal

   Förklaring

   The allocation entry indicates that the request was refused but omits stating which requirement the request failed to meet, contrary to the mandatory requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcomeSida: Throughout

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

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

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 3

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is an allocation record (Allocation entry AL-115). Under 'Allocation outcome', it states: 'The request for a second mooring was refused.' Under 'Notice to the club', it states: 'The club secretary was sent the outcome by letter.' 2. TRACE: The document records a refusal of a mooring request submitted by the rowing club. 3. EVALUATE: Law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1) requires: '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 record states that the request was refused but omits any statement regarding which requirement the request failed to meet. This constitutes an omission of a required element on a stated claim (omission_evidence = STATED_CLAIM). 4. SYNTHESIZE: There is one flaw identified under Law L1. No norm conflicts exist, and no procedural strengths mapped to the legal framework can be identified.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing grounds for refusal

   Förklaring

   The record documents the refusal of a request but fails to state which requirement the request failed to meet, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja · ett påstående saknar det som krävs av det

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part M, 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	refusal-grounds-absent Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	refusal-grounds-absent Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	refusal-grounds-absent 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 an allocation record (Allocation entry AL-115) concerning a mooring request by the rowing club. Under the heading 'Allocation outcome', the text states: 'The request for a second mooring was refused.' Under 'Notice to the club', it states that the club secretary was notified of the outcome by letter. 2. TRACE: The entry records a decision refusing the request for a second mooring. It provides no reasoning, criteria, or specification of any requirement that was not satisfied. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (L1), in a record, every allocation entry that says a request was refused must also say which requirement the request failed to meet. The author of the record failed to include this required statement when documenting the refusal. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The entry violates Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 by recording a refusal without stating which requirement the request failed to meet. As a refusal statement is present but lacks the mandatory detail, this constitutes an omission with an identifiable quote.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of refusal grounds

   Förklaring

   The allocation entry states that the request was refused but omits the mandatory statement of which requirement the request failed to meet, in violation of Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

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

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 2

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is an allocation record (Allocation entry AL-115) containing three sections: 'Mooring request' ('The rowing club asked for a second mooring at the west quay.'), 'Allocation outcome' ('The request for a second mooring was refused.'), and 'Notice to the club' ('The club secretary was sent the outcome by letter.'). 2. TRACE: The statement under 'Allocation outcome' records a decision to refuse the mooring request. Tracing the entry reveals no accompanying statement of reasons or specifications regarding which requirement or condition was not met. 3. EVALUATE: According to the binding rule in Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (L1), every allocation entry in a record that states a request was refused must also state which requirement the request failed to meet. The author of the record failed to include this required statement when recording the refusal. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate the flaw indicating that the refusal entry omits the requirement the request failed to satisfy, in violation of L1.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing grounds for refusal

   Förklaring

   The allocation entry records that the request was refused but fails to state which requirement the request failed to meet, in violation of the requirement for refusal entries in records.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

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

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 3

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document is an allocation record (Allocation entry AL-115) containing the following statements: a mooring request was submitted by the rowing club for a second mooring at the west quay; under 'Allocation outcome', the entry states 'The request for a second mooring was refused.'; under 'Notice to the club', it states that the secretary was sent the outcome by letter. 2. TRACE: Tracing the refusal decision under 'Allocation outcome', the document records a refusal decision without providing any grounds or specifying any unmet requirements. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (id: L1), in a record, every allocation entry stating that a request was refused must also state which requirement the request failed to meet. The record explicitly states that the request was refused ('The request for a second mooring was refused.'), but omits the mandatory statement of which requirement the request failed to meet. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There is a procedural omission flaw under the heading 'Allocation outcome' for failing to record which requirement the request failed to meet upon refusal as mandated by Law L1. No conflicting norms or valid strengths were identified.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing grounds for refusal

   Förklaring

   The allocation entry records that the request for a second mooring was refused but does not state which requirement the request failed to meet, departing from the mandatory requirement for refusal entries under Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part M, 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	refusal-grounds-absent Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	refusal-grounds-absent Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	refusal-grounds-absent 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 an allocation record (Allocation entry AL-115). Under 'Allocation outcome', it contains the statement: 'The request for a second mooring was refused.' Under 'Notice to the club', it states that notice of the outcome was sent to the club secretary by letter. 2. TRACE: The refusal outcome is recorded by the author of the record regarding the rowing club's request for a second mooring at the west quay. 3. EVALUATE: According to the binding law Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (id: L1), in a record, every allocation entry that says a request was refused must also say which requirement the request failed to meet. The record explicitly documents a refusal ('The request for a second mooring was refused.') but contains no statement or explanation of the requirement that the request failed to satisfy. 4. SYNTHESIZE: The entry violates the mandatory requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 to state which requirement the request failed to meet when refusing a request. This constitutes an omission on an existing refusal statement.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing grounds for refusal

   Förklaring

   The allocation entry records that the request was refused but fails to state which requirement the request failed to meet, contrary to the mandatory requirement of Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

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

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 2

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: The document contains an allocation entry (AL-115) recording a mooring request from a rowing club and an allocation outcome stating: 'The request for a second mooring was refused.' It further notes that notice of the outcome was sent to the club secretary by letter. 2. TRACE: The statement of refusal is found directly under the heading 'Allocation outcome'. The entry contains no statement identifying any unmet requirement. 3. EVALUATE: Under Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (L1), every allocation entry in a record that states a request was refused must also state which requirement the request failed to meet. The author recorded a refusal without stating the requirement that the request failed to satisfy. 4. SYNTHESIZE: This constitutes an omission under the applicable rule. Because the refusal itself is recorded in the text, the specific claim of refusal is quoted with is_omission set to true.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of refusal grounds

   Förklaring

   The allocation entry records that the request was refused but omits the mandatory statement specifying which requirement the request failed to meet, contrary to Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

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

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 3

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: Scanned the document for all statements and procedural actions. The document contains an allocation entry (AL-115) recording a mooring request from a rowing club for a second mooring at the west quay, an allocation outcome stating 'The request for a second mooring was refused.', and a notice record stating that the club secretary was sent the outcome by letter. 2. TRACE: Traced the refusal decision recorded under the heading 'Allocation outcome'. The refusal statement is asserted directly by the author of the record. 3. EVALUATE: Evaluated against the provided binding law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1, 'Grounds for refusing a request'). L1 mandates that in a record, every allocation entry that says a request was refused must also state which requirement the request failed to meet. The entry under 'Allocation outcome' explicitly states that the request was refused but fails to specify any requirement that was not met. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulated the flaw identifying the omission of the required failure-to-meet requirement specification for a refused request under L1.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Missing grounds for refusal

   Förklaring

   The allocation entry states that the request was refused but fails to state which requirement the request failed to meet, violating the mandatory requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

   L1 · Entry Practice Schedule, part M, 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 granskarenSamma fynd i varje körning	refusal-grounds-absent Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	refusal-grounds-absent Brist: hittad, på rätt textställe och med rätt regel Inga fynd utöver facit Inget förbjudet fynd Citat: 1 ordagrant, 0 påhittat, 0 obestämbart	refusal-grounds-absent 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 an administrative record containing 'Allocation entry AL-115'. It sets out a mooring request ('The rowing club asked for a second mooring at the west quay.'), an allocation outcome ('The request for a second mooring was refused.'), and notice to the club ('The club secretary was sent the outcome by letter.'). 2. TRACE: The statement 'The request for a second mooring was refused.' represents a refusal decision made by the author/allocating authority. 3. EVALUATE: According to the binding law Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (id: L1), 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. The document clearly records a refusal under 'Allocation outcome' but contains no statement identifying which requirement the rowing club's request failed to meet. 4. SYNTHESIZE: There is a clear omission violating Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1. The refusal is stated without the required grounds indicating the failed requirement.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of refusal grounds

   Förklaring

   The allocation entry states that the request was refused but fails to state which requirement the request failed to meet, violating the mandatory requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

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

   0 styrkor rapporterade

   Körning 2

   Språk som motorn angav: English

   Motorns resonemang

   1. SCAN: Identify all causal claims, factual conclusions, and diagnostic statements made in the text. The document contains an allocation entry regarding a mooring request made by a rowing club. Under the section 'Allocation outcome', the text concludes: 'The request for a second mooring was refused.' 2. TRACE: Tracing the statement backwards, the document records the refusal of the request without identifying any requirement that the application failed to satisfy. 3. EVALUATE: Compare against the binding legal framework. According to Law L1 (Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1, 'Grounds for refusing a request'), in a record, every allocation entry that says a request was refused must also say which requirement the request failed to meet. The document states the request was refused but completely omits the required statement of which requirement was not met. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate the flaw based on this omission in accordance with Law L1.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of refusal grounds

   Förklaring

   The allocation entry records that the request was refused but fails to specify which requirement the request failed to meet, violating the mandatory requirement in Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

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

   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. Under the section 'Allocation outcome', the document records: 'The request for a second mooring was refused.' 2. TRACE: The refusal outcome is recorded by the author of the record regarding the rowing club's request for a second mooring. 3. EVALUATE: According to Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1 (Grounds for refusing a request) [L1], in a record, every allocation entry that states a request was refused must also specify which requirement the request failed to meet. The duty rests on the author. In this entry, the refusal is stated, but there is no mention of any requirement that the request failed to meet. 4. SYNTHESIZE: Formulate the flaw identifying the omission of the required statement of failed requirements under the 'Allocation outcome' section, referencing binding law L1.

   1 brist rapporterad

   Kategori

   Omission of refusal grounds

   Förklaring

   The allocation entry states that the request was refused but fails to state which requirement the request failed to meet, as required for refusal records under Entry Practice Schedule, part M, issue 1.

   Citat

   The request for a second mooring was refused.

   Var

   Under the heading Allocation outcomeCiterad rubrik: Allocation outcome

   Utelämnande

   Ja

   Åberopad regel

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

   0 styrkor rapporterade