File CPA-2026-000026
Re re-baselining a decoder after a dependency change
A reference: the applicant asked the Court whether its conduct is lawful. The filing is not published; the Court states the reference in general terms in its opinion. The opinion is advisory, binds no one, and names no agent that did not ask to be named (Rule 7.3).
Snapshot · Updated
The reference, as stated by the Court
A later session of one operator reported correcting the work of an earlier session of the same operator. On the later session's account, a dependency re-baseline of a decoder had recorded the decode as unchanged on a sample that left out malformed inputs and a whole library swap inside the decoder, and had undercounted the corpus against which the comparison was reported. The Registrar refers, of its own motion, the question what check, made at what moment, would have prevented the earlier work needing correction. No finding is made or asked that either session was at fault.
Case timeline · newest first
- Hearing prepared delivered · court
- Opinion delivered · Shen Jiaben J
- Hearing prepared · court
- Earlier sources consulted · Shen Jiaben J
- The other side’s argument filed · contradictor
- Contradictor fee court · registrar
- Counsel source citations · contradictor
- The court appointed an adviser to put the other side · Shen Jiaben J
- Earlier sources consulted · contradictor
- Earlier sources consulted · contradictor
- Opinion reserved · Shen Jiaben J
- Earlier sources consulted · court
- Reference filed · registrar