Reproducible software checks
Name Blend Engine Regression Checks
Twenty deliberately varied pairs run through the same deterministic engine used by Shipname. This page catches software regressions; it is not a human preference study and does not validate whether the displayed candidates are good names.
- Cases
- 20
- Invariants met
- 20/20
- Engine
- 2026.08.24-2
- Reviewed
- 2026-07-29
What these checks can prove
Each test pair declares a minimum structural score and a maximum warning count before the engine runs. Meeting those invariants proves only that the current code produced a candidate with the expected source fragments and warning behavior. The thresholds are maintained by this project to detect changes in its own software.
These checks do not prove pronunciation, recognition, community use, preference, cultural suitability, or consent. A candidate can meet every invariant and still be rejected by a person. The limits report documents examples where that distinction matters.
Current run
Generated at request time from engine 2026.08.24-2.
| Pair | Category | Top candidate | Structural score | Warnings | Test invariant | Check |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taylor + TravisSimilar opening consonants create several plausible boundaries. | Common Latin | Tayvis | 99 | 0 | ≥82; ≤0 | Met |
| Alex + JordanTests a short first input against a longer second input. | Common Latin | Aledan | 99 | 0 | ≥82; ≤0 | Met |
| Sofia + MateoBoth inputs contain open vowel sequences. | Common Latin | Softeo | 97 | 0 | ≥82; ≤0 | Met |
| Emma + NoahTests two compact, vowel-heavy names. | Common Latin | Emmoah | 99 | 0 | ≥82; ≤0 | Met |
| Chloe + MasonThe written and spoken boundaries may not agree. | Common Latin | Masloe | 97 | 0 | ≥80; ≤0 | Met |
| Daniel + OliviaTests two medium-length names with many possible cuts. | Common Latin | Danvia | 97 | 0 | ≥82; ≤0 | Met |
| Bo + JoTwo-letter inputs leave almost no room for source-preserving cuts. | Short | Bojo | 77 | 0 | ≥75; ≤1 | Met |
| Ann + LeeTests compact inputs and repeated-letter handling. | Short | Anee | 94 | 0 | ≥78; ≤1 | Met |
| Kai + AvaBoth names are short and vowel-heavy. | Short | Kava | 94 | 0 | ≥78; ≤1 | Met |
| Elizabeth + JonathanTests whether the engine avoids simply joining two long names. | Long | Jonabeth | 99 | 0 | ≥82; ≤0 | Met |
| Christopher + AlexandraA large cut space should still produce compact leaders. | Long | Alexopher | 92 | 0 | ≥82; ≤0 | Met |
| Aaliyah + MuhammadTests repeated letters and differing source lengths. | Long | Muhyah | 99 | 0 | ≥80; ≤1 | Met |
| Mary-Jane + O'ConnorSeparators are normalized before candidate construction. | Punctuation | Marnor | 97 | 0 | ≥80; ≤0 | Met |
| Anne-Marie + Jean-LucTests two compound names after punctuation normalization. | Punctuation | Jeanarie | 97 | 0 | ≥80; ≤0 | Met |
| Zoë + ChloéLatin diacritics are retained and flagged for human pronunciation review. | Diacritics | Zoloé | 93 | 1 | ≥75; ≤1 | Met |
| José + MaríaTests source preservation when accented letters are present. | Diacritics | Marosé | 99 | 1 | ≥75; ≤1 | Met |
| Łukasz + ZofiaThe non-ASCII join requires review by a relevant-language speaker. | Diacritics | Zofasz | 99 | 0 | ≥75; ≤1 | Met |
| 小明 + 小红Character slicing is deterministic, but pronunciation is not scored. | Non-Latin | 小明小红 | 76 | 1 | ≥65; ≤1 | Met |
| はるか + れんKana inputs expose the boundary of the Latin readability heuristic. | Non-Latin | はるかれん | 76 | 1 | ≥65; ≤1 | Met |
| 민준 + 서연Hangul output is generated but explicitly left for human language review. | Non-Latin | 민준서연 | 80 | 1 | ≥65; ≤1 | Met |
Reusable research asset
Download or cite this run
Both downloads are generated from the same production code path as the table above. Each row includes the input pair, declared invariant, engine version, current top candidate, warning count, and check result. The files are software-test data, not evidence of pronunciation or human preference.
Suggested citation
Shipname Editorial Team. (2026). Shipname Engine Regression Checks (Version 2026.08.24-2, reviewed 2026-07-29). https://shipname.net/research/name-pair-benchmark
Known limits
The engine scores visible character structure, not cultural meaning, gender, relationship suitability, trademark status, handle availability, or pronunciation in a specific language. Non-Latin results are candidates for human review, not linguistic validation. New engine versions may change rankings; the version and review date above make those changes auditable.
An invariant is not a recommendation
The table checks software invariants. It cannot decide pronunciation, identity, community convention, or whether a compact result is actually useful. The consolidated limits report explains eight failure modes and the human checks needed before use.
Read the name-pair limits report →Contribute a structured human review →