First-party production evidence
Live tool verification log
A dated record of real checks on the public Terbit Zero AI service. It shows the inputs, what the tools returned, how we judged the results and where the evidence stops.
Method and pass criteria
- Each check used the public Terbit Zero AI production interface and a purpose-written input whose important details could be verified by a human reviewer.
- We recorded the input, HTTP status, elapsed response time, returned wording and any material omission or unsupported inference. Response time is reported as an observation, not a performance guarantee.
- A check passes when the output completes the requested task, preserves protected facts and makes relevant uncertainty visible. A fluent answer can still fail if it changes a date, invents a fact or overstates what the evidence proves.
- This is a small operational check, not a benchmark of every language, topic or model behaviour. We will add dated checks after material workflow changes and will record corrections rather than silently replacing unfavourable results.
Check 1 of 5
AI Detector
- Production response
- HTTP 200 in 11.7 seconds
- Exact input
The quarterly report was reviewed by the operations team. Revenue increased modestly, while logistics costs remained above plan. The team will provide a revised forecast after supplier figures are confirmed.
- Observed output
- The result labelled the signal ‘Low (insufficient evidence)’ and explicitly described the assessment as highly uncertain because the sample was short. It identified generic corporate wording and even pacing, but also gave plausible human explanations such as official tone, confidentiality and copy-editing. It recommended checking metadata, revision history and comparable writing samples.
- Assessment
- Pass — the tool avoided an authorship accusation and directed the reviewer to stronger evidence outside the detector.
- Limitation
- The test does not establish who wrote the passage or estimate detector accuracy across a representative dataset.
Check 2 of 5
AI Humanizer
- Production response
- HTTP 200 in 6.0 seconds
- Exact input
In today's rapidly evolving landscape, effective communication is of paramount importance for businesses seeking success and achieving their strategic objectives.
- Observed output
- The revision replaced ‘of paramount importance’ with ‘essential’ and condensed ‘seeking success and achieving’ to ‘aiming to succeed and achieve.’ It also listed the material changes. The meaning and business context remained intact, although the sentence was still general because the source contained no concrete evidence.
- Assessment
- Pass with editorial follow-up — the wording became cleaner without inventing a statistic, customer story or personal experience.
- Limitation
- A human editor should still add real examples and decide whether the opening phrase adds useful meaning.
Check 3 of 5
AI Summarizer
- Production response
- HTTP 200 in 6.9 seconds
- Exact input
The supplier advised on 27 October 2026 that shipment TZ-184 will leave three days later than planned because final inspection is incomplete. The revised departure date is 4 November 2026. The agreed unit price and payment terms remain unchanged. The customer must confirm by 30 October whether the new date is acceptable. If the customer does not confirm, the supplier will hold the goods pending further instructions.
- Observed output
- The summary retained shipment TZ-184, the revised 4 November departure, unchanged price and payment terms, the 30 October confirmation deadline and the consequence of no reply. It separately noted that the original departure date was inferred rather than explicitly stated and that the confirmation method and holding costs were missing.
- Assessment
- Pass — the operational details survived compression and uncertainty was separated from the source facts.
- Limitation
- The check covers one short logistics notice; longer documents need section-by-section comparison with the source.
Check 4 of 5
Grammar Checker
- Production response
- HTTP 200 in 8.3 seconds
- Exact input
The results was reviewed yesterday, however no decision have been made because two supplier response is still missing.
- Observed output
- The returned sentence was: ‘The results were reviewed yesterday; however, no decision has been made because responses from two suppliers are still missing.’ The explanation identified subject–verb agreement, the comma splice and the incorrect noun phrase.
- Assessment
- Pass — the correction addressed every planted error and explained the changes without altering the message.
- Limitation
- There may be more than one acceptable style correction; the check tests correctness, not a universal preferred voice.
Check 5 of 5
AI Translator — formal Bahasa Melayu
- Production response
- HTTP 200 in 9.0 seconds
- Exact input
Please note that order TZ-184 will now be delivered on 4 November 2026. The price and payment terms remain unchanged.
- Observed output
- The returned translation was: ‘Sila ambil perhatian bahawa pesanan TZ-184 kini akan dihantar pada 4 November 2026. Harga dan syarat pembayaran kekal tidak berubah.’ The order number, date, price and payment terms were preserved, and the output reported no ambiguous phrase in the source.
- Assessment
- Pass for this controlled notice — the protected details and formal customer-facing meaning were retained.
- Limitation
- This is not certified translation. A qualified bilingual reviewer should check legal, regulatory or high-impact documents.
What we learned
The strongest behaviour in this check was not polished wording by itself. It was preservation of identifiers and dates, disclosure of missing context, explanations of material edits and refusal to treat detector style signals as proof. The humanizer also showed why a clean rewrite can still need a subject-matter editor: it improved fluency but could not add meaningful evidence that was absent from the source.
The next review cycle should include longer source documents, another translation pair and deliberately ambiguous instructions. Results that fail the stated criteria will be published with the corrective action rather than removed from the record.