YA trib)))))
IA Anton_bn.
Sender den Br
So the verbosity level is maybe around 6, but also considering it’s just an example, so perhaps mid-range.
But the figuring tool is suggesting that, but perhaps for the question, 9 (steep) or maybe 7? Not sure.
Fourth, Unexpected Edge Cases or Vulnerabilities in the Tool.
The querying log is ½ points: native language, cross-platform, lightweight, no publisher-assisted, no IDE support, and file format is simple unicode.
So what type of bugs are trying to spawns responsive, self-contained Java.
Wait, but if the code is JAR, then requires Java, and maybe something like that, but withoutmatches.
So, for a native language, time and memory because it’s written in Java, requires Java version. Maybe high score? Or mid-range, if I expected something deployable.
So historical context: native language, cross-platform: considering both good and bad, but I can’t ensure.
Lightweight: yes, since it’s just some business logic.
No publisher assistance: perhaps lower score.
No IDE support: may require admin support?
File format is simple unicode: yes, but for code submission, might be tricky if it’s something more.Append: mentioning that someone pointed out a misplacing of ”几” and ”样例” in grammar, so the user thinks that the original name is slightly too ambiguous.
So in short, I’m to guess the scores:
1. Name corruption: 10/10 – a progression messed up, but no mutation. Maybe 9 with minimal issues.
2. Source of name: 8, an inspired blend or that the name is unclear, but why? Maybe 7?
But given it’s an art style, more important, so 8 or 9.
Wait,Art style: perhaps it’s perfect, 10. But if author thinks it’s not fitting the style but still capturing。“马拉多是不会失去认真的人”， so 8? Alternatively, it might be more muted.
Third, tool structure: good compliance, but missing something? Maybe the code is too generic, but not too bad. So somewhere 7-8. Alternatively, maybe for a system command: yes, and no IDE support, which could be a bug.
Okay, I’m a bit stuck. Perhaps I could go for:
1. 8
2. 8
3. 7
4. 8.
Or differ by reason.
But time is short. So perhaps, given that the name is not perfect in art style, get a middling 8.
Final scores:
1. 8
2. 8
3. 7
4.8?. I think that’s a better thought.
1. Name Corruption: The original name mixes ”地位” and ”秘密”, which may lead to some confusion for an audience familiar with certain terminology. However, it’s not too disruptive, so an 8 would likely be appropriate.
2. Source of Name: The blend is a clever checkout method, so between 7 and 8. The added sparkle makes it stand out, suggesting 9, but if it seems unfamiliar, 7 might fit.
3. Tool Structure: Strong and useful, but still lightweight. Missing a native language support is acceptable, so 8.
4. Edge Cases: The Java setup is minimal, but missing admin assistance could be an issue, leading to 6 or 7.
Final scores:
8 (1), 8 (2), 7 (3), 6 (4)
