“record and record”, if you mean the verb for persisting something and the noun for the thing persisted, are heteronyms (homographs which are not homophones), which incidentally is also what you would probably want to test what you are talking about here (distinguishing homophones would test use of context to understand meaning, but wouldn’t test anything about whether or not logic was working directly on audio or only working on text processed from audio, failing to distinguish heteronyms is suggestive of processing occurring on text, not audio directly.)

▲

bakeman 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

There are homophones of “record”, such as:

“He’s on record saying he broke the record for spinning a record.”

	▲	dragonwriter 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		True. OTOH my point that the thing being suggested to be tested is not testable by seeing whether or not the system is capable of distinguishing homophones, but might be by seeing whether or not it distingishes heteronyms still stands. (The speculation that the record/record distinction intended was one that is actually a pair of heteronyms and that the error was merely the use of the word “homophone" in place of “heteronym”, rather than the basic logic of the comment is somewhat tangential to the main point.)

▲

potatoman22 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Ah I meant heteronyms. Thanks!