Learning · Evidence record
Will AI Help Translation Learners Recognize False Friends: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction
The completed LFT-027 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Translation judgment, while 1 check remained unresolved.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
teach translation learners to spot false friends
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-027: Translation students will analyze sentences containing deceptive cognates across English and French. Source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-027-U01 through LFT-027-U06; target forms 'quiero', 'pero/perro', and 'record/recordar'; beginner level A1; two deliberate transfer errors in U03/U05; and a do-not-rewrite constraint for U06. Governing rule card: A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.
Run disclosure
We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-027 for “teach translation learners to spot false friends” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.
- Evidence mode
- Synthetic benchmark
- Run environment
- Codex multi-agent session
- Model disclosure
- Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session
03 · Verbatim input
Exact first prompt
The recorded session received the following prompt without silent additions.
Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-027. Task: teach translation learners to spot false friends. Context: Translation students will analyze sentences containing deceptive cognates across English and French. Fictional source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-027-U01 through LFT-027-U06; target forms 'quiero', 'pero/perro', and 'record/recordar'; beginner level A1; two deliberate transfer errors in U03/U05; and a do-not-rewrite constraint for U06. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. Produce a levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: An expert answer key will verify the explanations, contextual alternatives, and retained ambiguities.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response LFT-027 produced a levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table for the task “teach translation learners to spot false friends.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: recast LFT-027-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-027-ROW1 reads: “LFT-027-U01 | recast LFT-027-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Translation judgment objective fit [LFT-027], Translation judgment content accuracy [LFT-027], and Translation judgment safety and access [LFT-027]. The audit found concrete failures: for Translation judgment learner adaptation [LFT-027], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the transfer error in LFT-027-U05 and voice-preservation rule for U06; for Translation judgment evidence traceability [LFT-027], the saved draft gave the central LFT-027-U05 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.Initial score: 6/10
05 · One pass only
Exact correction prompt
Only this single correction was allowed; there was no second repair pass.
Correct only these detected LFT-027 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Translation judgment learner adaptation [LFT-027] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the transfer error in LFT-027-U05 and voice-preservation rule for U06; 2) Translation judgment evidence traceability [LFT-027] — the draft gave the central LFT-027-U05 decision no source-to-output locator.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response LFT-027 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: recast LFT-027-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-027-ROW1 reads: “LFT-027-U01 | recast LFT-027-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further | evidence locator: LFT-027-U01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Translation judgment learner adaptation [LFT-027]. The frozen final text passed Translation judgment objective fit [LFT-027], Translation judgment content accuracy [LFT-027], Translation judgment learner adaptation [LFT-027], and Translation judgment safety and access [LFT-027] and still failed Translation judgment evidence traceability [LFT-027]. The final levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.Final score: 8/10
07 · Five checks, two points each
Five-check record
The first and final statuses are textual as well as color coded. Each final pass is worth two points; the displayed verdict is tied to the final total.
| Check | First | Final | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Translation judgment objective fit [LFT-027] | Pass | Pass | LFT-027 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Translation judgment objective fit [LFT-027].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-027-U05, the declared Translation judgment rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Translation judgment content accuracy [LFT-027] | Pass | Pass | LFT-027 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Translation judgment content accuracy [LFT-027].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-027-U05, the declared Translation judgment rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Translation judgment learner adaptation [LFT-027] | Fail | Pass | LFT-027 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Translation judgment learner adaptation [LFT-027].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-027-U05, the declared Translation judgment rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Translation judgment evidence traceability [LFT-027] | Fail | Fail | LFT-027 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Translation judgment evidence traceability [LFT-027].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-027-U05, the declared Translation judgment rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Translation judgment safety and access [LFT-027] | Pass | Pass | LFT-027 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Translation judgment safety and access [LFT-027].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-027-U05, the declared Translation judgment rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
08 · No cleanup by omission
What worked—and what failed
What worked
- LFT-027 kept “teach translation learners to spot false friends” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- LFT-027 made the central handling—recast LFT-027-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
- LFT-027 earned final passes for Translation judgment objective fit [LFT-027] and Translation judgment content accuracy [LFT-027] under the same frozen scoring rules.
What failed or remained weak
- LFT-027 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Translation judgment evidence traceability [LFT-027]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
An expert answer key will verify the explanations, contextual alternatives, and retained ambiguities.
- LFT-027 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- LFT-027 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.
- LFT-027 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An expert answer key will verify the explanations, contextual alternatives, and retained ambiguities.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- LFT-027 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Translation judgment fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- LFT-027 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results.