Compare the rule with concrete cases
Original fictional batch returns eligible for each record with score at least four. A has two, B five. Input order A,B yields A=false, B=true. Reversing input must preserve each ID’s result, even if output order follows input.
| Input order | Scores by ID | Expected result by ID | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| A,B | A=2; B=5 | A=false; B=true | Baseline |
| B,A | A=2; B=5 | B=true; A=false | Same per-ID results |
| A,B after A=4 | A=4; B=5 | A=true; B=true | Changed data; not mere reorder |
Work through the distinction
Compare outcomes by identity, not position. The property applies only when independence is part of the declared rule; it would not suit a priority sequence where earlier records consume a limit.
A reversed run labels B=false and A=true without changing scores. Does it satisfy the property?
Show the worked answer
No. Results have been attached to positions rather than the matching IDs. B still requires true and A false.
Acceptance wording to adapt
For this independent score rule, any input permutation must preserve each record ID’s eligibility result. Permit reordered output, but compare (ID,result) pairs and reject changed per-ID outcomes when data is unchanged.