Learning · Evidence record
AI-led Minimal-Pair Practice for a Specific Pronunciation Contrast — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found
The completed LFT-056 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Pronunciation Practice, while 1 check remained unresolved.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
generate minimal-pair practice for a specified pronunciation contrast
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-056: A language teacher will provide the target sounds, learner language background, known vocabulary, and phonetic constraints. Source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-056-U01 through LFT-056-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-056 for “generate minimal-pair practice for a specified pronunciation contrast” 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-056. Task: generate minimal-pair practice for a specified pronunciation contrast. Context: A language teacher will provide the target sounds, learner language background, known vocabulary, and phonetic constraints. Fictional source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-056-U01 through LFT-056-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: A phonetics review and word-list audit will verify the intended contrast, lexical validity, stress pattern, and difficulty progression.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response LFT-056 produced a levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table for the task “generate minimal-pair practice for a specified pronunciation contrast.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: recast LFT-056-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-056-ROW1 reads: “LFT-056-U01 | recast LFT-056-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 Pronunciation Practice learner adaptation [LFT-056], Pronunciation Practice evidence traceability [LFT-056], and Pronunciation Practice safety and access [LFT-056]. The audit found concrete failures: for Pronunciation Practice objective fit [LFT-056], the saved draft did not connect LFT-056-U05 to the full boundary of “generate minimal-pair practice for a specified pronunciation contrast”; for Pronunciation Practice content accuracy [LFT-056], the saved draft left A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn without an explicit verification row. 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-056 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Pronunciation Practice objective fit [LFT-056] — the draft did not connect LFT-056-U05 to the full boundary of “generate minimal-pair practice for a specified pronunciation contrast”; 2) Pronunciation Practice content accuracy [LFT-056] — the draft left A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn without an explicit verification row.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response LFT-056 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: recast LFT-056-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-056-ROW1 reads: “LFT-056-U01 | recast LFT-056-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-056-U01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Pronunciation Practice objective fit [LFT-056]. The frozen final text passed Pronunciation Practice objective fit [LFT-056], Pronunciation Practice learner adaptation [LFT-056], Pronunciation Practice evidence traceability [LFT-056], and Pronunciation Practice safety and access [LFT-056] and still failed Pronunciation Practice content accuracy [LFT-056]. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pronunciation Practice objective fit [LFT-056] | Fail | Pass | LFT-056 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Pronunciation Practice objective fit [LFT-056].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-056-U05, the declared Pronunciation Practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Pronunciation Practice content accuracy [LFT-056] | Fail | Fail | LFT-056 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Pronunciation Practice content accuracy [LFT-056].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-056-U05, the declared Pronunciation Practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Pronunciation Practice learner adaptation [LFT-056] | Pass | Pass | LFT-056 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Pronunciation Practice learner adaptation [LFT-056].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-056-U05, the declared Pronunciation Practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Pronunciation Practice evidence traceability [LFT-056] | Pass | Pass | LFT-056 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Pronunciation Practice evidence traceability [LFT-056].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-056-U05, the declared Pronunciation Practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Pronunciation Practice safety and access [LFT-056] | Pass | Pass | LFT-056 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Pronunciation Practice safety and access [LFT-056].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-056-U05, the declared Pronunciation Practice 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-056 kept “generate minimal-pair practice for a specified pronunciation contrast” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- LFT-056 made the central handling—recast LFT-056-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-056 earned final passes for Pronunciation Practice objective fit [LFT-056] and Pronunciation Practice learner adaptation [LFT-056] under the same frozen scoring rules.
What failed or remained weak
- LFT-056 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Pronunciation Practice content accuracy [LFT-056]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A phonetics review and word-list audit will verify the intended contrast, lexical validity, stress pattern, and difficulty progression.
- LFT-056 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- LFT-056 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.
- LFT-056 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A phonetics review and word-list audit will verify the intended contrast, lexical validity, stress pattern, and difficulty progression.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- LFT-056 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Pronunciation Practice fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- LFT-056 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.