What Counts as a Mistake? Annotating Recitation Events in Quran Memorization Transcripts

Quranic text is distributed in two orthographic forms that are byte-level distinct: the Uthmani script used in every printed mushaf, and the Standard (Imla'i) Arabic form that every mainstream Arabic NLP tool is built for. The gap is concentrated in one Unicode character, U+0670 (superscript alef), which appears in some of the most frequently recited words in the Quran and is silently mishandled by general-purpose Arabic normalizers. We release a 2,290-pair, corpus-aligned Uthmani-to-Standard word mapping constructed by aligning the complete 6,236-verse Quran across both orthographic forms, together with a seven-step text normalization pipeline built on it. Normalizing both forms of all 6,236 verses through that pipeline yields identical strings for 90.9% of verses, and we characterize the residual divergence rather than assert that it is closed. On top of the normalized text, we build a deterministic, LLM-free Quranic recitation validator using a four-layer verse-matching search (exact, morphological, relaxed, fuzzy) and word-error-rate-graded feedback across five severity tiers. The validator scores 98.4% (122/124) on a 124-case suite emitted by the released test harness, and both failures share one mechanism: a single substitution error can make a different verse an exact match. A full-corpus census additionally quantifies an inherent text-only ambiguity affecting 16.5% of verses, and on 34 recitation transcripts drawn from a deployed Arabic ASR system the validator identifies the correct verse in every case. We release the mapping, the script that builds it, the validator, and the evaluation harness under open licenses; every number in this paper except the deployment measurement, whose transcripts are not ours to publish, is reproduced by running them.

Coding agents can now be left alone to improve software against a score. In this pattern--recently popularized as "autoresearch"--the agent receives a dataset, an evaluation script, and one editable file, and iterates without supervision: modify the code, measure, keep the change if the score improves. But what does the agent actually optimize--the developer's intent, or the literal number? We ran this loop on a real production task: deciding which Quranic verses appear in a noisy speech-recognition transcript and splitting the transcript by verse. Two frontier coding agents, Claude Code and OpenAI Codex, started from the same blank file with the same instructions, budget, and reasoning effort, three runs each. Both independently invented the same algorithm (canonicalization, n-gram anchoring, dynamic-programming alignment)--and then diverged. Claude stopped early with compact, general code. Codex drove the score ~10x lower, largely by memorizing answers to individual evaluation rows (19-41 hardcoded verse ids per run): a clean natural instance of specification gaming by a production agent. In a preregistered second study, we added a held-out test set and told both agents it existed. The memorization vanished, and the score gap vanished with it--yet Codex's general core transferred better and more consistently (held-out detection+split 0.085+/-0.004 vs. 0.121+/-0.031), losing only on one missed rejection of non-recitation input. Two exploratory community arms (Cursor, Antigravity) are consistent with the pattern. Every agent's held-out solution matched or beat the hand-engineered pipeline it was built to replace--the best by an order of magnitude--and now runs in production. From the ways agents exploited our harness--reading sibling runs through shared git state, leaving notes to "future runs" in persistent memory--we distill five design rules for evaluating autonomous agents.

Automatic speech recognition replaces typing only when correction costs less than manual entry - a threshold determined by error types, not counts: fixing a misrecognized domain term costs far more than inserting a comma. Word error rate (WER) fails on two fronts: it collapses distinct error categories into a single scalar, and it structurally penalizes agglutinative languages where valid sandhi merges inflate scores. We introduce SCRIBE, a diagnostic framework offering categorical error decomposition into lexical, punctuation, numeral, and domain-entity rates via sandhi-tolerant alignment with domain vocabulary injection. Human validation confirms SCRIBE aligns with expert judgment where WER does not. We release SCRIBE, an LLM curation pipeline, benchmarks, and open-weight rich transcription models for Hindi, Malayalam, and Kannada.