N1 2010-12 — audit report

71 questions (問題1–13, the non-listening half). Generated from the OCR and correction audit trails.

OCR confidence

Source: retypeset-digital — quality 4/5: Clean retypeset digital text (converted from a re-typed Word document by Chinese prep site 明王道/mingwangdao.com, whose logo heads every page) — crisp, high contrast, fully legible, no scan artifacts. Docked a point for fidelity concerns rather than legibility: stated section times are wrong (105分 vs official 110分, 50分 vs 60分), title typo 言葉知識, occasional body typos (運営運転, 選えらんでください), answers are unofficial 参考答案 with a probable missing listening answer, and original layout/furigana/boxed numbering are lost.

Every section was transcribed twice independently (a full-page pass and a double-resolution half-page pass) and reconciled. Of 13 sections, 9 agreed on all content between the two passes (reconciled automatically, differing only in transcriber notes) and 4 had at least one content difference resolved by a third adjudication pass that re-read the page images. 91 leaf-level differences were examined in total.

Residual OCR risks (21):

• 問題1: no human/agent spot-check was performed for this section (A/B byte-agreement on content was treated as sufficient)
• 問題2: no human/agent spot-check was performed for this section (A/B byte-agreement on content was treated as sufficient)
• 問題3: no human/agent spot-check was performed for this section (A/B byte-agreement on content was treated as sufficient)
• 問題4: no human/agent spot-check was performed for this section (A/B byte-agreement on content was treated as sufficient)
• 問題5: no human/agent spot-check was performed for this section (A/B byte-agreement on content was treated as sufficient)
• 問題6: The instruction-line ★ is printed on an underlined blank; the conventions do not explicitly cover the instruction line, so the half-width-space rendering (chosen for consistency with the slot-pattern convention and prior adjudications) drops that underline.
• 問題6: Source is a prep-school retypeset, so wording could differ from the genuine 2010-12 paper even where both transcribers and this adjudication agree with the rendered page.
• 問題7: no human/agent spot-check was performed for this section (A/B byte-agreement on content was treated as sufficient)
• 問題8: The 記-block padding is rendered with proportional gaps; two full-width spaces after 新住所 (plus dropped half-width text-layer spaces) is the closest character representation but not an exact metric match.
• 問題8: The small inline （注） marker in passage (4) is printed at reduced size and its parenthesis width is not visually determinable; full-width was chosen to match the gloss line.
• 問題8: Several retype typos (文章 for 文書, 来月1月, ご愛顧のこと, doubled は in Q48 option 3, 報道目的の合った) are preserved as printed; if a cleaner source surfaces these should be cross-checked rather than silently corrected.
• 問題9: Digit-adjacent spacing in passage(1) gloss (注2) '8000 メートル峰：8000 メートル級の山': source has a full-width space after ８０００ that becomes a half-width gap after ASCII normalization; kept as A had it, but exact space handling is a judgement call.
• 問題9: Source typos preserved verbatim and intentionally not corrected: 末踏 (gloss) vs 未踏 (body) in passage(1); 優先的植え (missing に) and 移行のである in passage(2); 平成 日本らしき宣言 citation in passage(3). These are genuine source artifacts, not OCR error.
• 問題9: Citation title spacing 『コンビニ　　ファミレス　回転寿司』 (two ideographic spaces then one) and 『平成 日本らしき宣言』 (single gap) are reproduced from A's glyph-position reading; source run boundaries are consistent with this but exact space counts inside titles carry minor uncertainty.
• 問題10: no human/agent spot-check was performed for this section (A/B byte-agreement on content was treated as sufficient)
• 問題11: no human/agent spot-check was performed for this section (A/B byte-agreement on content was treated as sufficient)
• 問題12: no human/agent spot-check was performed for this section (A/B byte-agreement on content was treated as sufficient)
• 問題13: The student table sits between the document box and the plain number 70; placing it at the start of question 70 stem (rather than in the passage) is a judgment call — downstream consumers should know the table is printed outside the box.
• 問題13: Exact widths of intra-line alignment gaps (three spaces after 募集人員, two after 支給額) follow B pixel measurements; the underlying Word file could have used tabs, so the space counts are approximations of printed geometry.
• 問題13: The narrow bullet was standardized to U+2022; the retype font glyph could conceivably be a different narrow middle-dot codepoint, but U+2022 matches the printed appearance.
• 問題13: Printed header cell 専攻成績 (where 専攻 is almost certainly intended) transcribed as printed per the typos-included rule.

Source-text quirks the OCR transcribed verbatim (printed typos/recall artifacts; the ones judged to be retype errors were corrected in the layer below) — 59 noted at OCR time:

• 問題1: Question 1 stem reads 「話しが本筋から…」 with okurigana し (standard would be 「話が」); transcribed as printed — likely a retype quirk or typo in the source document.
• 問題1: The 問題1 instruction line ends without a 。, unlike 問題2 on the same page which ends 「…選びなさい。」; transcribed as printed.
• 問題1: Question 1 stem reads 「話しが本筋から…」 — 「話しが」 (with okurigana し before が) is likely a retype typo for 「話が」; transcribed as printed.
• 問題1: The 問題1 instruction line ends without a final 。 in the print (問題2's instruction does have one); transcribed as printed.
• 問題2: Question 11 option 4 is printed 「急性に」, verified at high zoom; this is an odd adverbial form and may be a retype typo for 「急速に」, but it is transcribed as printed.
• 問題2: Question 11 option 4 reads 「急性に」 as printed; 急性 is normally a medical noun (acute) and does not form a natural adverb, so this is a suspected retype typo (perhaps for 「急速に」). Transcribed exactly as printed.
• 問題3: Question 16 is printed without a sentence-final 。 (「…新聞に目を通す」) — likely a retype omission; transcribed as printed.
• 問題3: Question 17 is printed without a sentence-final 。 (「…仕事がはかどっている」) — likely a retype omission; transcribed as printed.
• 問題3: Q16 stem is printed without a sentence-final 。 (「…新聞に目を通す」); likely a retype omission, transcribed as printed.
• 問題3: Q17 stem is printed without a sentence-final 。 (「…仕事がはかどっている」); likely a retype omission, transcribed as printed.
• 問題4: Question numbers 20-25 match the expected range; numbers are printed plain (unboxed) in this retypeset.
• 問題4: Underline extents verified at high zoom: in question 20 only 調達 is underlined (not the following し); in question 25 option 1 the underline covers 見落とす including す, and options 2-4 underline 見落とし only.
• 問題4: Question 24 option 1 reads 「田中さんはつい目先に帰ってしまいましたよ。」; 「つい目先に」 is an odd collocation (a genuine JLPT distractor would more plausibly be 「つい先ほど」), so this may be a retype artifact — transcribed as printed.
• 問題5: Q26: printed text reads 「１５日から運営運転を開始する」 — 運営運転 is almost certainly a retype typo for 営業運転; transcribed as printed.
• 問題5: Q35 option 4 is printed as 「べきなのではないでしょう」 with no final か, unlike options 1-3; possibly a dropped character in the retype, transcribed as printed.
• 問題5: Q33 options 3 and 4 are printed as 「刺させるなどしても」「刺させるくらいしても」 (causative 刺させる + しても, vs passive 刺され + したら in options 1-2); transcribed as printed.
• 問題5: Q26: stem prints 「運営運転」, almost certainly a retype typo for 「営業運転」; transcribed as printed.
• 問題5: Q27: stem prints 「いかなる理論でも」; the official wording may be 「いかなる理論も」, but transcribed as printed.
• 問題5: Q35: option 3 prints 「べきのではないでしょうか」 (ungrammatical; likely retype of 「べきではないでしょうか」) and option 4 prints 「べきなのではないでしょう」 with no final か (likely dropped in retype); both transcribed as printed.
• 問題6: No furigana printed anywhere in this section; no suspected retype typos noticed.
• 問題7: Fourth paragraph prints 「人間関係にひずみをももたらすだろう」 with も at a line end and もたらす starting the next line; the doubled も may be a retype duplication (the original Asahi column likely reads ひずみをもたらす), but it is transcribed as printed.
• 問題7: Final paragraph prints 「人々とコミュニケーション能力をさらに要求するだろう」; と looks like a retype error for に, transcribed as printed.
• 問題7: Boxed question numbers 41-45 in the print match the expected range; verified against both the page images and the PDF text layer.
• 問題8: Passage (2): the lead-in 「以下は、ある会社が取引先に出した文章である。」 is printed at the bottom of the previous page (p05) with the boxed letter at the top of the next page (p06); transcribed as the first <p>. Both the lead-in and question 47 say 文章 where the official exam wording is presumably 文書 — transcribed as printed.
• 問題8: Passage (2), suspected retype typo: 「来月1月に本社を…移転いたします」 — 来月 (next month, i.e. December given the letter date 2010年11月10日) contradicts 1月; the original presumably reads 来年1月. Transcribed as printed (verified against the page image).
• 問題8: Passage (2), suspicious wording: 「なお一層のご愛顧のことお願い申し上げます」 (expected のほど, or a comma after のこと). Transcribed as printed (verified against the page image).
• 問題8: Passage (2) numbers: digits normalized to ASCII; the printed full-width hyphens in 1－5－20, 03－7434－5656, 03－7434－5657 (U+FF0D) and the short half-width hyphen in 〒141-0023 kept as printed. The parentheses in 朝日ビル(北森区)／山中ビル(西川区) are printed half-width and kept so.
• 問題8: Passage (4): the 注 reference after 先鋭化 is printed as a small inline （注） marker; transcribed inline as full-width （注）, matching the gloss line's width. The gloss line has a stray colon after （注） — 「（注）：先鋭化させる：ここでは、目立たせる。」 — printed after the citation line and kept in that order, as printed.
• 問題8: Question 48 option 3 reads 「一人一人は雲の形はいつも同じだと思っているため」 with a doubled は; transcribed as printed (verified against the page image).
• 問題8: Question 49 option 4, suspected retype typo: 報道目的の合ったもの (expected 報道目的に合った). Transcribed as printed (verified against the page image).
• 問題9: Suspected retype typo in passage (2): 畑にはイモ類を優先的植えなければならない — probably 優先的に植え; transcribed as printed.
• 問題9: Suspected retype typo in passage (2): 食料管理に責任を持つ仕組みに移行のである (the printed line wraps right after 移行) — probably 移行するのである; transcribed as printed.
• 問題9: Passage (1) gloss （注3） prints its headword as 末踏 while the passage body prints 未踏; the gloss's 末 is almost certainly a 未 typo, but both are transcribed as printed.
• 問題9: 食料/食糧 are used inconsistently: the underlined phrase in passage (2) prints 食料の危機管理体制 while question 53's quotation of it prints 食糧の危機管理体制 (elsewhere: 食糧供給, 食糧確保, 食糧の危機管理体制, but 食料の生産や流通, 食料管理). Transcribed as printed at each occurrence.
• 問題9: Question 57's options appear retype-mangled: options 1-2 read 建物が老朽化してくる同じように…/建物が老朽化してくる外観を… and options 3-4 read 建物が老朽化してくる、… — the original presumably had 建物が老朽化してくると、. Transcribed as printed.
• 問題9: Gloss formats differ between passages: passage (1) prints a colon right after the marker (（注1）：俯瞰する：…) while passages (2) and (3) do not (（注1）頭打ち：…); preserved as printed.
• 問題9: Passage (3) citation shows a half-character gap between 平成 and 日本 produced by glyph positioning (no space character exists in the PDF text layer); transcribed with a single half-width space: 『平成 日本らしき宣言』. The title's らしき could itself be a retype slip (e.g. for らしさ) but is transcribed as printed.
• 問題9: Verified against the original digital source word/document.xml (input/N1_2010-12/studyinjapan-exam-retype.docx), the ground truth the PDF was rendered from. Transcriber A matched the source on essentially every field; transcriber B's passages and several answer options were heavily corrupted/hallucinated (invented duplicated and ungrammatical clauses that do not exist in the source) and were rejected.
• 問題9: Instruction line parentheses are printed half-width ASCII ( ) around the section numbers: 次の(1)から(3); kept as printed (A correct, not full-width).
• 問題10: Q60 option 4 contains a doubled object particle: 「人間が期待する次の行動ををするまで」 (をを) — transcribed exactly as printed; likely a retype typo.
• 問題10: Q59 option 4 ends without a final 。 while options 1-3 also lack a trailing 。 — q59 answers are noun phrases with no sentence-final punctuation as printed.
• 問題10: Q60 option 4 prints a doubled object particle: 「次の行動ををするまで」 (をを) — likely a retype typo; transcribed as printed.
• 問題10: Q59 option 4 ends with 「研究する」 (no 「こと」), while options 1-3 all end with 「こと」 — inconsistent with the parallel structure, possibly a retype omission; transcribed as printed.
• 問題11: Question 64 option 1 begins 「AとBも、」 where 「AもBも、」 is presumably intended (compare option 2); transcribed as printed — suspected retype typo.
• 問題11: Orthography mixes ゴミ and ごみ throughout the passages and options (e.g. ゴミ問題/ごみの量, ゴミ処理の費用/ごみ問題について); transcribed as printed.
• 問題11: Passage A uses 「○○円」 with two circle glyphs (U+25CB) as a placeholder amount, as printed.
• 問題11: Mixed katakana/hiragana for ごみ throughout, transcribed as printed: katakana in ゴミ問題・生ゴミ・ゴミ袋・ゴミの収集 (passages) and in question 63 options 2-4 / question 64 options 1-2 (ゴミ処理・ゴミの減少・ゴミ捨て), hiragana elsewhere (家庭ごみ、ごみの量、ごみ問題 etc.). The official exam is normally consistent, so the katakana instances are likely retype artifacts.
• 問題11: Question 64 option 1 begins 「AとBも、」 where the parallel option 2 uses 「AもBも、」 — suspected retype typo for 「AもBも」; transcribed as printed.
• 問題11: Passage A: 「家庭ごみ一個の収集につき○○円と有料化すれば」 — 「一個」 as a counter for a garbage-bag collection reads oddly (一袋 would be expected); transcribed as printed. The fee placeholder is two white circles, transcribed as ○○ (U+25CB).
• 問題12: Question 69 stem prints 「自分に「メディア力」について」 — 「自分に」 looks like a retype typo for 「自分の」; transcribed as printed.
• 問題12: The retypeset prints a small space between 注 and the digit in both the inline marks and the glosses (（注 1）/（注 2）); normalized to （注1）/（注2） per project convention.
• 問題12: Passage paragraph 12 prints 「1％の異常よりも」 — 異常 is what is printed, though the original essay wording may differ (possible retype substitution); transcribed as printed.
• 問題12: Passage paragraph 2 prints 観てきた (not 見てきた) and 異動して — both transcribed as printed.
• 問題12: Question 69 stem reads 「自分に「メディア力」について」 as printed; the に is suspicious (likely a retype error for 自分の), transcribed as printed.
• 問題12: Passage prints 「恐い人」 (恐 rather than 怖); kept as printed.
• 問題13: The 問題13 instruction line ends 選びなさい with no closing 。 in print; transcribed as printed.
• 問題13: Suspected retype typo: the 4th table header cell prints 専攻成績, but its data column (電子工学／農学／法学／理学) is clearly 専攻 and a separate 成績 column follows; transcribed as printed.
• 問題13: The document box uses half-width ASCII parentheses throughout, e.g. (博士前期課程), (指定のもの), (3000字以内); kept as printed. The decimal grades print as full-width digits with a half-width period (e.g. ２.８); normalized to 2.8.
• 問題13: Numbered list markers print as full-width １．２．…; digits normalized to half-width ASCII but the full-width ． kept as printed, giving 1．2．….

Corrections applied (27)

Evidence-based reconstructions of the original exam text. This section is the canonical correction log for the sitting.

• 問1 q1 question: 「ずれて」 → 「それて」
  • Reading question; body word should be それて per the idiomatic collocation 本筋からそれる. Witness confirms.
  • evidence: Witness line 4: 「話しが本筋からそれてしまった。」 [correct-retypes workflow (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-17]
• 問3 q16 question: 「新聞に目を通す」 → 「新聞に目を通す。」
  • Sentence-final 。 dropped in retype.
  • evidence: Witness line 36: 「父は毎朝、丹念に新聞に目を通す。」 [correct-retypes workflow (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-17]
• 問3 q17 question: 「はかどっている</u>」 → 「はかどっている</u>。」
  • Sentence-final 。 dropped in retype.
  • evidence: Witness line 38: 「最近、仕事がはかどっている。」 [correct-retypes workflow (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-17]
• 問5 q35 answers[2]: 「べきのではないでしょうか」 → 「べきではないのでしょうか」
  • Option 3 ungrammatical in our text; original is the negation form.
  • evidence: Witness line 102: option 3 「べきではないのでしょうか」 [correct-retypes workflow (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-17]
• 問5 q35 answers[3]: 「べきなのではないでしょう」 → 「べきなのではないでしょうか」
  • Final か dropped (other options all end でしょうか).
  • evidence: Witness line 102: option 4 「べきなのではないでしょうか」 [correct-retypes workflow (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-17]
• 問8 q49 answers[3]: 「報道目的の合った」 → 「報道目的に合った」
  • Wrong particle の for に; collocation is 目的に合う.
  • evidence: Witness line 234: 「報道目的に合ったものを選び取る」 [correct-retypes workflow (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-17]
• 問9 q50 passage: 「末踏」 → 「未踏」
  • （注3）gloss headword typo; passage body and gloss definition use 未踏.
  • evidence: Witness line 252 gloss 「未踏」; passage body already uses 未踏 [correct-retypes workflow (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-17]
• 問9 q54 passage: 「移行のである」 → 「移行するのである」
  • する dropped; 移行 is a suru-verb.
  • evidence: Witness line 280: 「仕組みに移行するのである」 [correct-retypes workflow (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-17]
• 問9 q57 answers[0]: 「建物が老朽化してくる同じように」 → 「建物が老朽化してくると、同じように」
  • Conditional と、 dropped; all four options begin 「建物が老朽化してくると、」.
  • evidence: Witness line 353: 「建物が老朽化してくると、同じように…」 [correct-retypes workflow (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-17]
• 問9 q57 answers[1]: 「建物が老朽化してくる外観を」 → 「建物が老朽化してくると、外観を」
  • Conditional と、 dropped.
  • evidence: Witness line 355: 「建物が老朽化してくると、外観を…」 [correct-retypes workflow (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-17]
• 問9 q57 answers[2]: 「建物が老朽化してくる、材料を」 → 「建物が老朽化してくると、材料を」
  • と dropped before 、.
  • evidence: Witness line 357: 「建物が老朽化してくると、材料を…」 [correct-retypes workflow (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-17]
• 問9 q57 answers[3]: 「建物が老朽化してくる、景観の」 → 「建物が老朽化してくると、景観の」
  • と dropped before 、.
  • evidence: Witness line 359: 「建物が老朽化してくると、景観の…」 [correct-retypes workflow (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-17]
• 問10 q59 answers[3]: 「動物の心や意識を研究する」 → 「動物の心や意識を研究すること」
  • こと dropped; options 1-3 all end in こと.
  • evidence: Witness line 415: 「…動物の心や意識を研究すること」 [correct-retypes workflow (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-17]
• 問10 q60 answers[3]: 「次の行動ををするまで」 → 「次の行動をするまで」
  • Doubled object particle をを is a retype duplication.
  • evidence: Witness line 424: 「人間が期待する次の行動をするまで」 [correct-retypes workflow (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-17]
• 問13 q70 question: 「専攻成績」 → 「専攻」
  • Header cell duplicated 成績; its data column holds majors and a separate 成績 column with scores follows.
  • evidence: Table data under this header is 専攻 values (電子工学/農学/法学/理学); separate 成績 column (3.0/2.9/2.8/3.0) follows; requirements list 専攻 as the field [correct-retypes workflow (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-17]
• 問1 q1 question: 「話しが<u>本筋</u>からそれてしまった。」 → 「話が<u>本筋</u>からそれてしまった。」
  • 話 read はなし as a noun takes no okurigana; 話し is the 連用形 of the verb. Standard form is 話が.
  • evidence: Category orthography, confidence high. [retype-corrections-pass2 (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-20]
• 問2 q11 answers[3]: 「急性に」 → 「急速に」
  • 急性 is a medical noun (acute) and does not form a natural adverb; 急速に進む is the idiomatic distractor that pairs with 円滑に進む. Retype substituted 性 for 速.
  • evidence: Category homophone, confidence medium. [retype-corrections-pass2 (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-20]
• 問5 q26 question: 「15日から運営運転を開始する」 → 「15日から営業運転を開始する」
  • 運営運転 is not a word; 営業運転 (commercial/revenue service) is the standard railway term for beginning service with new rolling stock.
  • evidence: Category typo, confidence high. [retype-corrections-pass2 (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-20]
• 問7 q41 passage: 「人々とコミュニケーション能力をさらに要求するだろう」 → 「人々にコミュニケーション能力をさらに要求するだろう」
  • The pressure 要求する(demands) communication ability of/from people; the directional particle should be に, not と. と is a retype error.
  • evidence: Category typo, confidence medium. [retype-corrections-pass2 (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-20]
• 問7 q41 passage: 「人間関係にひずみをももたらすだろう」 → 「人間関係にひずみをもたらすだろう」
  • Doubled も at a line break; original Asahi column reads ひずみをもたらす. The duplication is a retype artifact.
  • evidence: Category added-char, confidence medium. [retype-corrections-pass2 (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-20]
• 問8 q47 passage: 「来月1月に本社を」 → 「来年1月に本社を」
  • Letter is dated 2010年11月10日, so 来月 would be December, contradicting 1月. Original reads 来年1月; this is also why answer option 1 (1月移転) is keyed correct.
  • evidence: Category typo, confidence high. [retype-corrections-pass2 (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-20]
• 問8 q47 passage: 「なお一層のご愛顧のことお願い申し上げます」 → 「なお一層のご愛顧のほどお願い申し上げます」
  • Fixed business-letter idiom is ご愛顧のほどお願い申し上げます; のこと is a retype error for のほど.
  • evidence: Category typo, confidence high. [retype-corrections-pass2 (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-20]
• 問9 q53 passage: 「イモ類を優先的植えなければ」 → 「イモ類を優先的に植えなければ」
  • 優先的 must take に to modify the verb 植える; the に was dropped in the retype.
  • evidence: Category dropped-char, confidence high. [retype-corrections-pass2 (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-20]
• 問11 q64 answers[0]: 「AとBも、ゴミ処理費用」 → 「AもBも、ゴミ処理費用」
  • Parallel structure with option 2 (AもBも) and the meaning 'both A and B' require AもBも; AとBも is a retype error.
  • evidence: Category typo, confidence high. [retype-corrections-pass2 (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-20]
• 問12 q69 question: 「自分に「メディア力」について」 → 「自分の「メディア力」について」
  • 'About one's own media power' requires の (自分の「メディア力」について); 自分に is ungrammatical here and is a retype error.
  • evidence: Category typo, confidence high. [retype-corrections-pass2 (propose + adversarial verify), 2026-06-20]
• 問7 q0 passage: 「（注2）な競」 → 「な（注2）競」
  • （注N）note marker repositioned to follow its glossed term (the retype placed the marker before the word).
  • evidence: Marker-only move; the marker-stripped text is byte-identical. [note-marker relocation pass, 2026-06-20]
• 問12 q0 passage: 「（注1）のあ」 → 「の（注1）あ」
  • （注N）note marker repositioned to follow its glossed term (the retype placed the marker before the word).
  • evidence: Marker-only move; the marker-stripped text is byte-identical. [note-marker relocation pass, 2026-06-20]