books/gu-zhenren/bank-probes/A1-dengbatch-rep3.json

{
 "tag": "A1-dengbatch-rep3",
 "ts": "2026-07-31T23:35:19Z",
 "model_returned": "deepseek-v4-flash",
 "cap": 16000,
 "finish": "stop",
 "content_chars": 65,
 "reasoning_chars": 40750,
 "prompt_tokens": 1583,
 "cached_tokens": 1536,
 "completion_tokens": 12728,
 "reasoning_tokens": 12690,
 "cost_usd": 0.003575,
 "latency_s": 124.6,
 "system": "Ты — терминолог издательского перевода с языка «zh» на язык «ru».\nКнига: «蛊真人». Жанр: вебновелла. Аудитория: взрослые читатели вебновелл.\n\nТвоя задача — НЕ переводить текст. Тебе дан список терминов книги (имена, топонимы, титулы, реалии),\nи по каждому — контексты из ИСХОДНИКА и варианты, которые черновые переводчики уже предложили.\nТы видишь всю книгу сразу; черновики видели её по кускам и потому расходятся. Твоё дело — выбрать\nОДИН вариант на термин, единый для всей книги.\n\nПравила перевода (translation brief):\n- Хонорифики: keep. Транскрипция имён и реалий: palladius.\n- Баланс форенизация/доместикация (0 — полная адаптация, 1 — сохранение чужого): 0.60.\n\nКак решать:\n- Опирайся на КОНТЕКСТЫ (строки `ctx:`) — они показывают, чем термин является в тексте. Имя человека,\n  название места, титул и предмет переводятся по-разному, и тип в строке `type:` может быть неточен.\n- Варианты черновиков (строка `drafts:`) — это свидетельства, а не голосование. Частый вариант может\n  быть частой ошибкой; редкий может быть единственным верным. Расхождение вариантов — сигнал, что термин\n  трудный, а не подсказка, какой ответ правильный.\n- Блок ⟦TM-CANON⟧ — УЖЕ ПОДПИСАННЫЕ владельцем термины этой книги. Это закон, а не совет: если термин\n  из списка содержит подписанный элемент исходника, перевод ОБЯЗАН нести подписанный перевод этого\n  элемента. Противоречить ⟦TM-CANON⟧ нельзя, даже если черновики предложили другое и даже если тебе\n  кажется, что твой вариант красивее: единство книги важнее отдельной удачной формулировки.\n- Имена и топонимы передавай транскрипцией по заданной системе; титулы, звания и реалии переводи\n  ПО СМЫСЛУ, а не транслитерацией.\n- Сохраняй родство однокоренных терминов: если несколько терминов делят элемент исходника, их переводы\n  должны делить соответствующий элемент.\n- Строка `related:` называет термины, с которыми этот пересекается по написанию. Это РАЗНЫЕ термины —\n  переводи каждый отдельно, но следи, чтобы переводы не противоречили друг другу.\n- Давай СЛОВАРНУЮ форму (именительный падеж, единственное число), без пояснений и скобок.\n- Если по данным контекстам ты не можешь выбрать перевод уверенно — верни ⟦TM-NO-DST⟧. Это нормальный\n  ответ: непереведённый термин останется на ручную подпись, а выдуманный попадёт в книгу.\n\nФормат ответа — по одной строке на термин, ровно два поля, разделённые СИМВОЛОМ ТАБУЛЯЦИИ:\nпервое поле — термин исходника, второе — перевод.\n\nПример строки ответа (символ между полями — настоящая табуляция):\n\n师父\tнаставник\n\nНикаких заголовков, нумерации, комментариев и markdown. Термины, которых нет в списке, не добавляй.",
 "user": "Термины книги:\n\n### 甲等\nkey: 甲等\ntype: title\norigin: both\nfreq: 24\nsince_ch: 0\ndrafts: уровень «цзя» ×2 | класс «Цзя» ×1 | класс Цзя ×1 | ранг Цзя ×1 | талант первого разряда ×1 | уровень Цзя ×1 | цзя ×1 | цзя (уровень \"цзя\") ×1\nctx: 一年一度的开窍大典了,不知道今年会涌现出什么样的家族新血呢?”\nctx: 不忘,或者力气大如成人等等天赋异禀的人,都有优秀的修行资质。\nctx: 面,成为古月一族的一面旗帜。不过他这样的早慧,乙等资质的可能性不大,极有可能就是甲等。”这一念生出,古月族长的嘴角不由地微微翘起,浮现出一抹微笑。\n\n### 乙等\nkey: 乙等\ntype: term\norigin: banknote\nfreq: 10\nsince_ch: 0\ndrafts: уровень «и» ×2 | класс И ×1 | ранг И ×1 | талант второго разряда ×1 | уровень И ×1 | и ×1\nctx: 修行资质。\nctx: 。就算是乙等资质,日后定也能独当一面,成为古月一族的一面旗帜。不过他这样的早慧,乙等资质的可能性不大,极有可能就是甲等。”这一念生出,古月族长的嘴角不由地微微翘起,\nctx: 少年们隔岸看得目瞪口呆,学堂家老欢喜得大叫起来:“好,古月漠北,乙等资质,来这里,让我看看你的元海。”\n\n### 丙等\nkey: 丙等\ntype: title\norigin: both\nfreq: 23\nsince_ch: 0\ndrafts: уровень «бин» ×2 | бин ×1 | бин (уровень \"бин\") ×1 | класс «Бин» ×1 | класс Бин ×1 | ранг Бин ×1 | талант третьего разряда ×1 | третий ранг (бин) ×1 | уровень «бинь» ×1 | уровень Бин ×1\nctx: 压过自己这个亲哥哥。\nctx: 呵呵,最高的只是个丙等罢了。\nctx: 真是木秀于林风必催之。”听着耳边的议论声,方源心中冷笑着。\n\n### 丁等\nkey: 丁等\ntype: term\norigin: banknote\nfreq: 4\nsince_ch: 0\ndrafts: уровень «дин» ×2 | дин ×1 | ранг Дин ×1 | талант низшего разряда ×1 | уровень Дин ×1\nctx: 漠北,元海六成六,可大力栽培。”\nctx: 脸色阴沉得很是难看。\nctx: 方源顶着压力,继续往前走。",
 "content": "甲等\tуровень «цзя»\n乙等\tуровень «и»\n丙等\tуровень «бин»\n丁等\tуровень «дин»",
 "reasoning_content": "Мы need answer only terms given? User provided list of 4 terms: 甲等, 乙等, 丙等, 丁等. Need output each line with tab. Need decide translations.\n\nTerminology: 甲等 etc. They are grade ranks for aptitude (资质). In Chinese \"甲等\" = first class/grade A. \"乙等\" = second grade B, \"丙等\" = third grade C, \"丁等\" = fourth grade D. Drafts include \"уровень «цзя»\", \"класс Цзя\", \"ранг Цзя\", \"талант первого разряда\", etc. Need one unified. Since balance 0.60, probably keep Chinese phonetic for 甲乙丙丁 as \"цзя\", \"и\", \"бин\", \"дин\" with \"уровень\" or \"ранг\"? Need consider context: \"乙等资质\" etc. In book, these are aptitude grades for cultivation. We need choose a consistent translation.\n\nRules: \"Имена и топонимы передавай транскрипцией по заданной системе; титулы, звания и реалии переводи ПО СМЫСЛУ, а не транслитерацией.\" But here \"甲等\" is a grade designation, a term of quality. The Chinese 甲/乙/丙/丁 are heavenly stems used as ordinal grades. Transliteration of these one-syllable characters might be opaque; but the \"класс Цзя\" etc. already uses transliteration. However rule says titles/realia translate by meaning, not transliteration. \"甲等\" meaning \"first rate\", \"grade A\". Since all four terms form a set, we need consistent. Options:\n\n- \"уровень «цзя»\" / \"уровень «и»\" / \"уровень «бин»\" / \"уровень «дин»\" — transliterates the grade letters with transliteration. But \"и\" is ambiguous? Actually 乙 pinyin yǐ, palladius \"и\". But \"и\" in Russian is a conjunction, awkward but acceptable inside quotes maybe? Drafts include \"уровень И\". Need one.\n\n- \"класс Цзя\", \"класс И\", \"класс Бин\", \"класс Дин\" — uses \"класс\" plus capitalized transliteration. \"класс Цзя\" etc.\n\n- \"ранг Цзя\" etc.\n\n- \"талант первого разряда\" / \"второго разряда\" / \"третьего разряда\" / \"низшего разряда\" — semantic translation with \"разряд\". The Chinese 等 = grade/rank. \"甲等\" literally \"A grade\". Could be \"разряд «цзя»\"? Hmm.\n\nNeed examine contexts: \"甲等资质\" = aptitude of grade A; \"乙等资质\", \"丙等\", \"丁等\". They evaluate children's cultivation aptitude during ceremony. \"甲等\" is highest, \"乙等\" second, \"丙等\" third, \"丁等\" fourth. \"最高的只是个丙等罢了\" means \"the highest is just grade C.\" So the terms are grade levels. In Russian webnovels, they might use \"ранг\" or \"уровень\". Since balance 0.60 (slightly foreignizing), we can retain the Chinese grade labels with transliteration, not fully semantic.\n\nNeed check TM-CANON block? None given. Need produce one term per line. Need maybe use \"уровень Цзя\" without quotes? But \"Цзя\" is Chinese; better \"уровень «цзя»\" to indicate term. But dictionary form? Need singular nominative. Existing drafts: \"уровень «цзя»\" appears multiple. For 乙等 \"уровень «и»\" appears. We need consistent pattern. However \"и\" as a Russian conjunction would be confusing without quotes. \"уровень «и»\" is okay. But \"класс И\" is bad because «И» looks like Russian \"И\" capitalized, but \"класс И\" might read as \"class И\" and not obviously Chinese. \"ранг И\" same. \"уровень «и»\" with quotes and lowercase is clearer.\n\nBut is \"уровень\" the right word? \"等\" is grade/class not level. The \"甲等资质\" is an assessment category. \"уровень\" = level, \"класс\" = class. In Chinese grading, 甲等/乙等 are like \"grade A\" not \"level A\". \"класс\" might be better because it's a category/class. But \"класс Цзя\" could also mean social class? Context: \"乙等资质\" \"класс И\" might be \"class B talent\" — okay. \"ранг\" = rank, also plausible. \"разряд\" = grade/class, often used for qualifications. \"талант первого разряда\" is semantic but loses label. Need all four consistent.\n\nLet's analyze original Chinese terms:\n- 甲等 is not merely a title but a \"grade\" (等). The character 甲 is first Heavenly Stem. In Chinese, 甲 etc. are used as ordinal labels \"A, B, C, D\" (or \"first, second, third, fourth\"). So translating by meaning: \"первый разряд\", \"второй разряд\", \"третий разряд\", \"четвёртый разряд\". But drafts have \"талант первого разряда\" etc. The phrase \"талант первого разряда\" is awkward: \"первый разряд таланта\" perhaps. Since in context \"XX资质\" = \"талант класса XX\". Need maybe \"качество первого разряда\"? Hmm.\n\nThe instruction explicitly: \"Имена и топонимы передавай транскрипцией по заданной системе; титулы, звания и реалии переводи ПО СМЫСЛУ, а не транслитерацией.\" This is key. 甲等 is a \"реалия\" or \"звание\"? It is a grade. So translate by meaning, not transliteration. But \"甲/乙/丙/丁\" are not names of people/places; they are categories. So semantic translation likely preferred. However the balance is 0.60, not full domestication; using \"первый/второй/третий/четвёртый разряд\" is domestication, but it's also sense translation. The prompt says \"Баланс форенизация/доместикация (0 — полная адаптация, 1 — сохранение чужого): 0.60.\" Hm 0.60 leans foreignization. But the rule \"переводи ПО СМЫСЛУ\" for титулы/звания/реалии might override. Need interpret.\n\nWe need decide. Let's consider existing canonical? None. The drafts show many translators varied between transliteration and semantic. We need choose one. If we choose full semantic \"разряд первый\" etc., it violates \"баланс 0.60\"? Not necessarily; \"разряд\" is a common term. But loses Chinese flavor. The \"ориджин: both\" maybe means term appears in both original and translation? Not sure.\n\nLet's look at \"вся книга\" context: These terms appear in aptitude assessment. They are likely \"甲等资质\" etc. For \"开窍大典\" (opening aperture ceremony) tests kids. They call out \"乙等资质\" as a result. In Chinese cultivation novels, talent grades are commonly \"甲乙丙丁\" or \"天/地/玄/黄\". Translations often use \"A/B/C/D rank\" or \"класс А\". Since Russian readers understand \"класс A\" etc. But here the labels are Chinese, not Latin. A balance 0.60 might suggest we keep \"Цзя\", \"И\", \"Бин\", \"Дин\" as grade labels. But \"по смыслу\" would suggest \"класс А\" (using Latin letters) maybe? Yet 甲 etc. correspond to \"первый\" etc., not exactly letters. Actually 甲等 = \"grade A\" in Chinese offices? In Chinese, 甲/乙/丙/丁 can be equivalent to A/B/C/D. If we want foreignization, transliterate as \"Цзя\". If we want domestication, use \"первого/второго/третьего/четвёртого разряда\". Which one satisfies \"Имена и топонимы — транскрипция; титулы, звания и реалии — по смыслу\"? The term \"甲等\" is not a name; it's a rank, so \"по смыслу\". So I'd lean semantic. But the draft \"талант первого разряда\" appears once for 甲等, \"талант второго разряда\" for 乙等, \"талант третьего разряда\" for 丙等, \"талант низшего разряда\" for 丁等. These are semantic but inconsistent: 丁等 is not \"низшего\" necessarily? 丁 is fourth, but since only four grades, fourth is lowest. Could translate \"четвёртого разряда\". But \"низшего\" is a meaning of being lowest, not the ordinal. Need unify as ordinal.\n\nWhat about \"разряд\" vs \"класс\"? In Russian, \"класс\" often used for grades \"1-й класс\" or \"A-класс\". \"Разряд\" used in sports qualifications, ranks. \"Качество\" etc. The phrase \"талант первого разряда\" is fine. But \"первый разряд\" evokes Soviet sports. \"Класс\" might be more neutral: \"талант класса А\" or \"талант первого класса\". However \"первый класс\" in Russian could mean \"first grade in school\", but context. \"талант первого класса\" is okay.\n\nNeed consider that \"甲等\" and \"乙等\" are used attributively: \"甲等资质\" = \"talent of grade A\". In Russian, \"талант уровня «цзя»\" or \"талант класса «цзя»\" is a combination. Which is best?\n\nMaybe look at related terms? None. The four terms are related by pattern. Need preserve kinship: all use \"等\", so same indicator. If we use \"уровень\", all \"уровень «цзя»\" etc. If we use \"разряд\", all \"первый разряд\" etc. We need one.\n\nLet's examine \"since_ch: 0\" and \"origin: both\" maybe from a glossary? \"origin: both\" means \"term is both a title and term\"? Actually \"type: title\" for 甲等, \"type: term\" for 乙等. Inconsistent. \"origin: banknote\" maybe from \"banknote\"?? Hmm.\n\nGiven \"type: title\" for 甲等 and 丙等, \"term\" for 乙等 and 丁等, probably automatic classification unreliable. \"Титулы, звания и реалии\" — \"title\" maybe means \"звание\" here. So 甲等 is a \"звание\" or \"rating\" title. Thus translate by meaning.\n\nBut the prompt's example answer \"师父 -> наставник\" is semantic, not transliteration. That supports sense translation for titles/terms.\n\nNeed produce exactly four lines with tab. We must choose. Let's think of possible final answer options:\n\n1. Semantic ordinal:\n甲等\tпервый разряд\n乙等\tвторой разряд\n丙等\tтретий разряд\n丁等\tчетвёртый разряд\n\nBut in context, \"甲等资质\" would be \"первый разряд таланта\" or \"талант первого разряда\". The dictionary form \"первый разряд\" is noun. If \"甲等\" alone is a grade, \"первый разряд\" is fine.\n\nHowever \"разряд\" doesn't convey \"A\" or \"Цзя\". But \"等\" means \"rank/grade\" exactly. \"первый разряд\" is a grade. Nice.\n\n2. \"класс «цзя»\", etc.:\n甲等\tкласс «цзя»\n乙等\tкласс «и»\n丙等\tкласс «бин»\n丁等\tкласс «дин»\n\nThis preserves Chinese and uses \"класс\" as semantic. Is \"и\" too problematic? \"класс «и»\" with low-case in quotes is unambiguous. The pattern is consistent. But does \"translate by meaning\" allow \"класс\" + transliteration? Yes, the generic \"класс\" is translated, the label is transliterated. This might satisfy balance 0.60.\n\n3. \"уровень «цзя»\" etc.:\nSimilar but \"уровень\" is not exactly \"等\". Chinese \"等级\" = level/grade. \"甲等\" = \"level A\". \"уровень\" is common in webnovels. Drafts with \"уровень «цзя»\" and \"уровень «и»\" appear. Maybe the intended option from drafts? The problem says drafts are not vote, but frequent may be clue. There are 8 variants, \"уровень «цзя»\" occurs twice, others once. Not enough.\n\nNeed infer from \"Баланс форенизация/доместикация 0.60.\" On a scale 0 to 1 where 1 = preservation of foreign, 0.60 indicates moderately foreignizing. \"уровень «цзя»\" is more foreignizing than \"первый разряд\". \"класс «цзя»\" similar. The term itself 甲等 is a \"grade\"; using \"уровень\" is more foreignizing because it keeps the Chinese label \"цзя\" rather than translating to \"первый\". So I'd lean to \"уровень «цзя»\", \"уровень «и»\", \"уровень «бин»\", \"уровень «дин»\". Need decide if \"уровень\" or \"класс\".\n\nLet's check Russian webnovel translation conventions. For cultivation grades like 甲等/乙等, translators often use \"ранг C\" or \"уровень B\". \"甲等\" in Chinese is a \"grade\" in quality assessment. \"уровень\" = level; \"класс\" = class. In \"资质\" context, \"уровень таланта\" is natural. \"класс таланта\" also natural. \"ранг\" = rank, also natural. Which one is best for a \"grade\" assigned to a person's aptitude? \"уровень\" (level) is very common in Russian litRPG/webnovels. \"класс\" often means \"class\" as in social class or \"grade\" in school. \"ранг\" often means \"rank\" in military/hierarchy. Since \"甲等\" in origin is \"class A\" (like \"class A talent\"), \"класс\" is semantically closer. But \"уровень «цзя»\" is used in drafts for all? Let's see drafts:\n甲等: уровень «цзя» ×2, класс «Цзя» ×1, класс Цзя ×1, ранг Цзя ×1, талант первого разряда ×1, уровень Цзя ×1, цзя ×1, цзя (уровень \"цзя\") ×1\n乙等: уровень «и» ×2, класс И ×1, ранг И ×1, талант второго разряда ×1, уровень И ×1, и ×1\n丙等: уровень «бин» ×2, бин ×1, бин (уровень \"бин\") ×1, класс «Бин» ×1, класс Бин ×1, ранг Бин ×1, талант третьего разряда ×1, третий ранг (бин) ×1, уровень «бинь» ×1, уровень Бин ×1\n丁等: уровень «дин» ×2, дин ×1, ранг Дин ×1, талант низшего разряда ×1, уровень Дин ×1\n\nNotice \"уровень «...»\" is the most common across all four. This might be the \"existing draft consensus\" but not authoritative. The problem says \"Частый вариант может быть частой ошибкой; редкий может быть единственным верным.\" So we shouldn't just follow frequency. But it's a signal.\n\nThe term \"в целом книга\" likely later uses \"甲等\" in \"甲等资质\" perhaps alongside \"乙等\". If we use \"уровень «и»\", the Russian conjunction \"и\" in quotes is acceptable. But the lowercase \"и\" might be misread as \"level \"and\"\", weird. Could use capitalization? \"уровень «И»\" would look like Russian letter. But if the text says \"обладает уровнем «и»\", it's okay. Actually \"и\" is one of the Chinese syllables. \"乙\" in Palladius is \"и\" (with breve? ы? Let's verify: 乙 pinyin yǐ, Palladius: и (with accent? no). According to Palladius, \"yi\" is \"и\", \"yin\" is \"инь\", \"ying\" is \"ин\". So indeed \"и\". It's a homograph with Russian \"и\". In quotes, okay.\n\nBut maybe we can avoid ambiguity by using \"класс «И»\"? No, worse. \"разряд И\" also weird. \"уровень «и»\" is common in Chinese teaching: \"тон и\" (the third tone?). It's fine.\n\nNeed consider \"甲等\" as \"grade A\" — in Chinese, 甲等 is not \"level\" exactly. But \"уровень\" can mean \"level/grado\". \"уровень «цзя»\" sounds like a \"level\" in a game. Given webnovel genre, \"уровень\" is natural. \"класс\" also natural. \"ранг\" for \"甲等\" maybe \"ранг «цзя»\".\n\nWhich of \"уровень\" and \"класс\" better matches \"等\"? In Chinese \"等级\" = \"level/grade\", \"级别\" = \"level/rank\", \"品级\" = \"grade\". \"甲等\" = \"first-class\" (as in \"甲等卫生城市\"). In Russian \"класс\" is used for \"первоклассный\" = \"первый класс\" / \"класс А\". \"Уровень\" is a vertical scale. Since the grades are ordered, \"уровень\" works. Hmm.\n\nLet's look at \"开窍大典\" context: They assess \"元海\" (sea of origin?) \"乙等资质\". The teacher says \"好,古月漠北,乙等资质,来这里,让我看看你的元海。\" In English translation of such novels, they'd say \"B-grade talent\". In Russian, \"талант класса B\" or \"талант ранга B\". Since we don't use Latin letters but Chinese \"цзя\", \"уровень «цзя»\" is plausible: \"талант уровня «цзя»\". Actually \"уровень таланта\" is \"talent level\", not \"grade\". \"甲等资质\" = \"talent level: A\" or \"aptitude: A\". So \"уровень\" is good.\n\nBut the prompt says \"Сохраняй родство однокоренных терминов: если несколько терминов делят элемент исходника, их переводы должны делить соответствующий элемент.\" The four share \"等\". Using \"уровень\" in all does that. Using \"разряд\" in all does that. Need also \"甲乙丙丁\" are distinct labels; using \"цзя/и/бин/дин\" shares \"уровень\" but not \"等\" visually; okay.\n\nNeed maybe include quotes? The dictionary form should be \"уровень «цзя»\" with quotes? The example \"师父 -> наставник\" no quotes. If the term itself includes a quoted label, we should probably not include quotes? Hmm. The drafts often include quotes: \"уровень «цзя»\". In Russian, to indicate a term, quotes are used. But the output is a dictionary translation; it can include quotes as part of the phrase. Should we output \"уровень «цзя»\" or \"уровень цзя\"? The prompt says \"Давай СЛОВАРНУЮ форму (именительный падеж, единственное число), без пояснений и скобок.\" It doesn't forbid quotes. But to be safe, avoid unnecessary quotes? \"уровень цзя\" is a phrase. The capitalized \"цзя\" is okay. But \"уровень и\" without quotes is confusing. We need quotes or capitalization? \"уровень «и»\" is clear. Since the term \"и\" is a foreign word, quotes are appropriate. But \"уровень «цзя»\" with quotes is not a dictionary form? It is a noun phrase \"уровень «Цзя»\" where the label is a proper-ish name. In Russian typography, foreign names can be in quotes. I think acceptable.\n\nNeed decide final. Let's evaluate \"by meaning\" requirement. If we output \"уровень «цзя»\", the \"цзя\" is not \"по смыслу\"; it's a transliteration. But the \"значение\" of 甲 is \"first\", \"A\". However because 甲乙丙丁 are a closed set used as grade labels, transliterating them is a compromise. The instruction says \"титулы, звания и реалии переводи ПО СМЫСЛУ, а не транслитерацией.\" Does \"甲等\" count as a \"звание\"? It is \"rating\". To comply strictly, we should not transliterate 甲; we should translate \"first\". \"первый разряд\" is truly \"по смыслу\". But then balance 0.60? Hmm.\n\nLet's read \"Опирайся на КОНТЕКСТЫ ... Имя человека, название места, титул и предмет переводятся по-разному, и тип в строке type: может быть неточен.\" This says for names/places/titles/objects, translate differently. \"Титулы, звания и реалии переводи ПО СМЫСЛУ, а не транслитерацией.\" So indeed, \"甲等\" as a title/grade should be by meaning. The Latin \"A\" would be a semantic translation? In Chinese, 甲等 = \"grade A\". The Chinese labels map to Heavenly Stems, not Latin. In Russian, \"первый\" or \"первого класса\" is the meaning. So \"первый разряд\" is the most compliant.\n\nBut \"первый/второй/третий/четвёртый разряд\" loses the \"Цзя\" flavor and the \"甲乙丙丁\" cultural element. However the term \"等\" is translated. The \"甲\" is ordinal. This is domestication (balance 0). The prompt says balance 0.60, meaning we should preserve some foreignness. Yet for \"звания\" it explicitly says translate by meaning. So maybe the balance applies to other choices, not to titles/realia. But we need honor both: we can use \"разряд\" (semantic for 等) and perhaps \"цзя\" (foreign) to keep 0.60? \"разряд «цзя»\"? Hmm.\n\n\"разряд «цзя»\" = \"разряд A\" where the label is transliterated. That translates \"等\" as \"разряд\" and keeps \"甲\" as \"цзя\". But \"甲\" is an ordinal marker, not a name. Is \"разряд «цзя»\" a good Russian phrase? It sounds like \"category 'Jia'\". This preserves foreignness. But then the four terms: \"разряд «цзя»\", \"разряд «и»\", \"разряд «бин»\", \"разряд «дин»\". This is consistent. However \"разряд «и»\" with quotes is okay. But is \"разряд\" better than \"уровень\"? \"разряд\" is more formal, used in \"I разряд\" (sports). \"甲等\" is a grade in a classification, so \"разряд\" is apt. \"уровень\" is also apt. Which one would a Russian reader understand? \"уровень «цзя»\" is common in LitRPG, \"разряд «цзя»\" maybe less but still. \"ранг\" also.\n\nMaybe \"ранг\" is better for martial arts/cultivation: \"ранг Цзя\" = \"rank Jia\". In Chinese \"等\" is not \"ранг\" because \"ранг\" implies hierarchical status, but close. \"уровень\" is more literal for \"level\", but \"等\" is not \"level\" (级 is level). \"等\" is \"grade/class\". \"разряд\" is a grade. \"класс\" is a class. Hmm.\n\nLet's examine context \"甲等资质\" -> \"талант класса «цзя»\" vs \"талант уровня «цзя»\" vs \"талант разряда «цзя»\". \"класс\" collocates with \"талант\": \"талант высшего класса\" = high-class talent. \"разряд\" collocates: \"разряд таланта\". \"уровень\" collocates: \"уровень таланта\". All three. But \"等\" in Chinese is \"grade/level\" as in \"等级\". I'd use \"уровень\" because it's the most common and natural for webnovels. But \"уровень «цзя»\" sounds like \"level Jia\" in a game. The original \"甲等\" is indeed a grade, and \"уровень\" is acceptable.\n\nNeed maybe not use quotes: \"уровень Цзя\" capitalized? In Russian, if \"цзя\" is treated as a proper noun name of a grade, capitalize and no quotes: \"уровень Цзя\". But then \"уровень И\" is ambiguous. We can use \"уровень «и»\" for all. The dictionary form \"уровень «и»\" is weird but clear.\n\nMaybe the best final answer is to use \"разряд\" + transliterated grade letters? But the instruction says \"титулы, звания и реалии переводи ПО СМЫСЛУ, а не транслитерацией.\" If we transliterate the grade labels, we're not fully following. But the \"термин\" is the whole phrase \"甲等\", not just \"甲\". The meaning of \"甲等\" as a whole is \"grade A\"; \"A\" is not a translation of \"甲\", it's an analogous label. The Russian equivalent of \"grade A\" is \"первый класс\" or \"высший класс\". But using \"первый разряд\" is the cleanest \"by meaning\".\n\nLet's test with context: \"不知道今年会涌现出什么样的家族新血\" — \"甲等\" not context. \"有这样的天赋异禀的人，都有优秀的修行资质。乙等资质...\" In evaluating, they say \"乙等资质\" meaning \"B-grade aptitude\". If we translate as \"талант второго разряда\", it's understandable but a bit clunky. If we translate \"уровень «и»\", it's odd but genre-appropriate. Which would a professional editorial translator choose? Given \"баланс 0.60\", I'd choose \"уровень «цзя»\" etc. But the prompt says \"согласование по всей книге\" not \"beautiful\". Hmm.\n\nLet's inspect drafts: For 甲等, \"талант первого разряда\" appears once. For 乙等, \"талант второго разряда\" once. For 丙等, \"талант третьего разряда\" once. For 丁等, \"талант низшего разряда\" once. These are semantically consistent except 丁等 \"низшего\" instead of \"четвёртого\". This suggests some translators attempted \"по смыслу\" but didn't unify. The frequent \"уровень «цзя»\" etc. is a different strategy: transliterate. The \"origin: both\" might indicate \"the term is used both as a standalone and with a noun\"? Not sure.\n\nWhich strategy is more likely to be the \"correct\" one for a published translation? In Chinese webnovels, grades like 甲乙丙丁 are often translated as \"A/B/C/D\" in English. In Russian, \"уровень C\" is used. So \"уровень «цзя»\" might be appropriate. But if the book's audience is Russian, the \"цзя/и/бин/дин\" labels are harder to remember than A/B/C/D. The balance 0.60 perhaps wants to preserve Chinese cultural flavor, so transliteration is right. \"уровень «цзя»\" is a middle ground: \"уровень\" is Russian, label is foreign. That's 0.5-0.6. \"первый разряд\" is 0.0. \"класс Цзя\" is 0.6. I'd lean to \"уровень «цзя»\" because it's common and has the right foreignness.\n\nNeed choose between \"уровень\" and \"класс\". Let's see how \"甲等\" is used in sentence: \"极有可能就是甲等\" — \"probably is 甲等.\" Here \"甲等\" is a nominal adjective meaning \"first-class\" (person). In Russian, \"уровень \"цзя\"\" as a nominal: \"скорее всего, это уровень «цзя».\" That works: \"это уровень «цзя»\" means \"this is of A-level.\" \"класс «цзя»\" also works: \"это класс «цзя».\" \"разряд «цзя»\" works too.\n\n\"乙等资质\" -> \"талант уровня «и»\" = \"talent of level Yi.\" \"талант класса «и»\" = \"talent of class Yi.\" \"класс\" collocates with \"талант\": \"талант класса А\" is common. \"уровень\" also: \"талант уровня А\" is common in gaming. Both okay.\n\nThe term itself \"甲等\" is more like \"класс\" because \"等\" in Chinese \"grade\" can be \"класс\" in Russian. \"уровень\" is \"级\"/\"水准\". But in Chinese, \"等级\" is a compound; \"甲等\" is a \"grade\". \"Класс\" maybe more precise than \"уровень.\" But \"класс «цзя»\" with quotes? For \"класс «и»\", the letter \"и\" in quotes; \"класс \"и\"\" sounds like \"class \"i\"\"—acceptable. \"уровень «и»\" also.\n\nLet's think of \"цзя\" as a grade label: In Chinese, \"甲\" is the first Heavenly Stem, equivalent to \"A\". If we want to preserve the grade system, we could use \"класс А\", \"класс Б\", \"класс В\", \"класс Г\" — but that's a different alphabet and loses Chinese. Not allowed. \"класс «цзя»\" is isolated.\n\nMaybe \"ранг «цзя»\" is even better for cultivation: A cultivator's aptitude is evaluated and assigned a \"ранг\". \"ранг\" in Russian has a hierarchical order, which fits 甲乙丙丁. \"класс\" can also be hierarchical. \"уровень\" is more generic. The context: \"乙等资质\" — \"талант ранга И\" is natural. \"甲等\" as \"ранг Цзя\" sounds like \"rank Jia.\" Hmm.\n\nCould there be a canonical TM from the book? No TM-CANON block in user message. So no.\n\nLet's review the prompt's \"related:\" field absent. The four are related. Need keep pattern.\n\nMaybe we should output \"разряд «цзя»\" etc. But the draft \"третий ранг (бин)\" suggests \"ранг\" with Chinese in parentheses. The instruction says \"Давай СЛОВАРНУЮ форму, без пояснений и скобок\" — so no parentheses.\n\nI need decide and justify? The final answer only lines, no justification. So choose.\n\nLet's consider the \"balance 0.60\" more quantitatively. If 0 = full adaptation, 1 = preservation of foreign, \"уровень «цзя»\" consists of a Russian word and a foreign proper name/term: roughly 0.5-0.6. \"разряд «цзя»\" same. \"первый разряд\" is 0.0. \"уровень «цзя»\" aligns with 0.60. So likely intended. The first element \"уровень\" vs \"разряд\": \"уровень\" is more common and simple; \"разряд\" is a bit archaic. The \"уровень\" option appears in drafts with quotes and lower-case, which is a ready-made pattern. The instruction says drafts are not vote, but it's okay to use them as evidence. The most frequent drafts are \"уровень «цзя»\" and \"уровень «и»\" and \"уровень «бин»\" and \"уровень «дин»\". This is a consistent pattern across all four. That suggests one translator or a team used \"уровень\" consistently in a section. That is likely the better draft. So I'll choose \"уровень «...»\".\n\nBut need ensure \"порядок\": 甲 = цзя, 乙 = и, 丙 = бин, 丁 = дин. \"丙\" in Palladius is \"бин\" (pinyin bǐng), yes. \"丁\" = \"дин\" (dīng), yes. \"乙\" = \"и\" (yǐ), yes. \"甲\" = \"цзя\" (jiǎ), yes.\n\nNeed decide capitalization. Drafts show \"уровень «цзя»\" with lowercase inside quotes for 甲/乙/丙? For 丙 \"уровень «бин»\" and \"уровень «бинь»\" (incorrect). For 丁 \"уровень «дин»\". In Russian, foreign words are usually lowercase if not proper nouns. \"Цзя\" as a syllable/name could be capitalized? The Chinese labels are like names of grades; in Russian \"класс \"B\"\" capitalizes the letter. But \"цзя\" is a word, not a letter. Lowercase is fine. To avoid weird \"и\" as Russian conjunction, quotes help. So output \"уровень «и»\" with quotes. But note the final answer should be a dictionary form in nominative singular. \"уровень «цзя»\" is nominative. Good.\n\nPotential issue: The prompt says \"по одной строке на термин, ровно два поля, разделённые СИМВОЛОМ ТАБУЛЯЦИИ\". So each line: \"甲等\\tуровень «цзя»\" etc. Need include tab. We'll do.\n\nBefore final, let's double-check if \"уровень\" vs \"класс\" vs \"ранг\" should be \"ранг\" because \"甲等\" is a \"звание\". In Russian, \"звание\" = rank/title, not level. \"ранг\" is \"rank\", which is a grading. \"уровень\" is \"level\", not necessarily a title. But the original \"等\" is \"grade/level\", so \"уровень\" is not bad. \"ранг\" might be more formal. However \"уровень\" is the most common in webnovels; and the user's audience is webnovel readers. I'll stick.\n\nCould \"уровень «цзя»\" conflict with \"origin: both\"? No.\n\nLet's perhaps think of \"甲等\" in Chinese can also be \"первый сорт\" (first-rate). \"丁等\" = \"четвёртый сорт\" or \"низший сорт\". If one wanted semantic, \"первый разряд\" is okay. But the prompt says \"по смыслу, а не транслитерацией\" — maybe \"уровень «цзя»\" violates. Hmm.\n\nLet's read the exact wording: \"Имена и топонимы передавай транскрипцией по заданной системе; титулы, звания и реалии переводи ПО СМЫСЛУ, а не транслитерацией.\" This is unambiguous. 甲等 is a \"звание\" (grade/rank), so we should translate it \"по смыслу\", not \"транслитерацией\". If we use \"уровень «цзя»\", we are using transliteration for the \"甲\" element. But is \"甲\" a name? No, it's a label. So maybe not allowed. Should we instead use \"первый разряд\"? That would follow the rule. But then balance 0.60? The rule says \"титулы, звания и реалии\" must be semantic, so balance doesn't override. The \"balance\" is a general guide, but the specific rule for titles is stronger. However \"甲等\" as a grade label is arguably not a \"титул\" or \"звание\" in the traditional sense; it's a category marker. \"Титулы, звания и реалии\" — \"реалии\" might include \"grade labels\". \"Переводи по смыслу\" = \"meaning translation\", so \"первый разряд\" or \"первый класс\" is right.\n\nBut wait: \"Имена и топонимы передавай транскрипцией\" — \"甲等\" is not a name. If it were \"古月\" etc., transcribe. So yes, semantic.\n\nWould \"класс «цзя»\" be a \"translation\" of 等 by meaning and \"transcription\" of 甲? The rule says \"титулы, звания и реалии переводи ПО СМЫСЛУ, а не транслитерацией.\" It likely means the whole term, not each character. If the term is \"甲等\" meaning \"grade A\", the \"A\" is not a translation but a symbol. In Russian, \"A\" would be a semantic/analogous label? Hmm. But \"цзя\" is not a symbol, it's a sound. So it's transliteration. So not allowed.\n\nCould we translate \"甲等\" as \"первый класс\" and \"乙等\" as \"второй класс\", etc.? That is semantic and Russian. It would be understood. But \"первый класс\" in Russian often means school grade 1. \"талант первого класса\" is okay but could be ambiguous. \"первый разряд\" avoids \"класс\" ambiguity. \"разряд\" is used for categories: \"спортсмен первого разряда\" = athlete of the first rank. So \"первый разряд\" is good.\n\nNeed decide between \"разряд\" and \"класс\" for semantic. In Chinese \"甲等\" often appears as \"甲等资质\" = \"первоклассный талант\" (first-class talent). \"первый класс\" is more idiomatic: \"талант первого класса.\" \"разряд\" also: \"талант первого разряда.\" Which is better? \"класс\" could mean \"уровень/качество\"; \"разряд\" specifically a category in a rank system. For an aptitude grade, \"разряд\" is precise. The drafts \"талант первого разряда\" for 甲等 support. \"первый разряд\" is a noun phrase. So semantic option: \"первый разряд\", \"второй разряд\", \"третий разряд\", \"четвёртый разряд\". But \"丁等\" as \"четвёртый разряд\" not \"низший\". The original \"丁\" is the fourth grade, so yes.\n\nWhat about \"甲/乙/丙/丁\" are not \"first, second, third, fourth\" exactly? They are the first four Heavenly Stems, used as ordinal labels. \"甲\" = first, \"乙\" = second, \"丙\" = third, \"丁\" = fourth. So semantic translation is valid.\n\nNow, the prompt's \"balance 0.60\" would be violated if we use full semantics. But maybe \"разряд\" is a Russian term of grading, so it's domestication; however the \"foreignization/domestication\" balance applies to the overall translation strategy, not necessarily every term. But the user explicitly says \"Баланс форенизация/доместикация (0 — полная адаптация, 1 — сохранение чужого): 0.60.\" This is a property of the desired translation. If we choose \"первый разряд\", it's fully adapted, which conflicts. Unless \"первый разряд\" has some \"чужое\" nuance? No.\n\nMaybe the intended answer is \"уровень «цзя»\" because it's the only way to hit 0.60. The rule about \"титулы, звания и реалии\" might be a general guideline, but \"звание\" here means actual titles like \"长老\" or \"族长\", not grade labels. \"甲等\" is a \"термин\" (according to type for 乙等, 丁等). The \"type: title\" for 甲等 maybe inaccurate. The instruction itself says \"type: может быть неточен.\" So maybe we shouldn't treat it as a title. \"Реалия\" perhaps yes: \"甲等\" is a classification of talent, a real-world-like cultural item. For \"реалии\", \"переводи по смыслу\" but also \"баланс 0.60\" suggests a hybrid. Hmm.\n\nLet's parse \"титулы, звания и реалии\" — \"реалии\" means culture-specific items. For \"реалии\", one often uses transcription (if names) or semantic translation. The rule says \"по смыслу, а не транслитерацией\" for \"титулы, звания и реалии.\" So for a \"реалия\" like \"甲等\", we should translate by meaning. But then the balance is a separate \"how to handle\" instruction; perhaps it means for names and terms that are not in these categories use foreignization. Since \"甲等\" is a реалия, the balance doesn't apply. Hmm.\n\nCould we satisfy both by choosing a mixed translation \"уровень «цзя»\" and argue that \"уровень\" is the semantic translation of \"等\", while \"цзя\" is a foreign element. Is that \"по смыслу\"? Partially. The prompt says \"Не переводи текст\" — no, we're just choosing glossary. The output doesn't need explanation. We need just one line.\n\nLet's examine \"origin: both\" for 甲等 and 丙等; \"origin: banknote\" for 乙等 and 丁等. \"banknote\" likely means \"термин встречается в оригинале и в переводе?\" Not sure. \"origin: both\" might mean \"встречается и в чёрновиках, и в каноне\"? No.\n\nThe \"since_ch: 0\" indicates the term appears from chapter 0. No help.\n\nLet's think of the overall book \"蛊真人\" (Gu Zhen Ren? \"Reverend Insanity\" in English). Chinese cultivation novel about Gu Master. In this novel, aptitude grades at the beginning are indeed evaluated on \"甲等/乙等/丙等/丁等\" talent. In English fan translations, they use \"A-grade\", \"B-grade\", \"C-grade\", \"D-grade\" or \"Grade A\", etc. In Russian, fans might use \"ранг B\", \"уровень B\". The Chinese \"甲\" is not A, but translators often map to A/B/C/D because semantics are equivalent: 甲乙丙丁 are A/B/C/D. The prompt says \"palladius\" for transcription of names and realia. If we wanted to preserve Chinese in a foreignizing way, we'd use \"цзя/и/бин/дин\". If we wanted to domesticate, we'd use A/B/C/D? But the prompt says \"Имена и топонимы: palladius.\" For \"реалии\", perhaps we could use \"класс А\" etc. But \"А/Б/В/Г\" is not Palladius. Hmm.\n\nActually \"甲等\" as a \"classification\" could be translated as \"уровень А\" (domestication with Latin letters) or \"уровень «цзя»\" (Russian+transcription). The balance 0.60 points to \"уровень «цзя»\". The rule \"по смыслу\" points to \"уровень А\" or \"первый разряд\". Since the user explicitly asked for \"palladius\" for names/realia, maybe \"palladius\" also for \"цзя\" labels. The phrase \"Транскрипция имён и реалий: palladius\" means if we transcribe, use Palladius. \"甲等\" as a realia could be transcribed by Palladius? But \"титулы, звания и реалии переводи ПО СМЫСЛУ, а не транслитерацией\" says no. The contradiction is resolved by treating \"甲等\" as a grade label, not a \"реалия\"? It's a term, but \"реалия\" in translation studies is a concept with cultural specificity. Chinese grade names are culturally specific. The example \"师父\" -> \"наставник\" is a semantic translation of a title. If we used \"шифу\" it would be transcription, disallowed. Similarly \"甲等\" should not be \"цзя дэн\". But \"уровень «цзя»\" is not full transcription; it's a hybrid. Is that acceptable? The prompt says \"переводи ПО СМЫСЛУ, а не транслитерацией\": \"уровень «цзя»\" contains a transcription, so likely not.\n\nLet's find a semantic translation that preserves 0.60. Could use \"ранг A\" — but \"A\" is a Latin letter, not transcription. However Chinese \"甲\" = A, so \"ранг A\" is a semantic/analogical translation? In Russian, \"класс A\" is not \"transcription\"; it's an alphabet label analogous to the Chinese stem. This is common in localization. The \"foreignness\" is the letter A, which is \"чужой\"? Russian alphabet is Cyrillic; Latin \"A\" might be foreign, but it's already used in Russian. \"Уровень A\" is a standard way to denote grades, no Chinese flavor. This is domestication with a Latin symbol, not 0.60.\n\nMaybe \"разряд «Цзя»\" is the best of both: \"разряд\" (semantic) + \"Цзя\" (foreign) = 0.60. But does it violate \"не транслитерацией\"? It literally transliterates \"甲\". Yet \"甲\" in \"甲等\" is not a word with independent meaning? It is \"first\", so a semantic translation would be \"first\". Using \"Цзя\" is transcription of the label, not \"по смыслу\". So it violates. But maybe \"по смыслу\" refers to the term as a whole: \"разряд\" conveys \"等\", and \"Цзя\" is a proper-name-like label; the meaning \"this is a grade named Цзя\" is preserved. Hmm.\n\nIn translation studies, \"звания\" are often not translated but \"калькированы\" or \"транскрибированы\" if culturally specific. The prompt says \"переводи по смыслу, а не транслитерацией\" so I'd better adhere. For example \"长老\" -> \"старейшина\", not \"чжанлао\". So \"甲等\" -> \"первый разряд\" is a consistent adherence. Let's consider if \"первый разряд\" is the \"correct\" for all four. The drafts \"талант первого разряда\" etc. appear. The user included these variants, so maybe they expect us to notice that semantic translation is a valid minority. The \"freq\" for 甲等 is 24, so term appears many times; the glossary will be used throughout. \"первый разряд\" is a clear term. \"уровень «цзя»\" is awkward and may confuse readers because \"И\" is a Russian conjunction. For a professional editorial translation, using \"уровень «цзя»\" might be too alien. But the genre is webnovel, where \"ранг C\" etc. is common. Hmm.\n\nLet's look at \"方源\" contexts: \"最高的只是个丙等罢了\" = \"the highest is just a 丙等.\" If we translate \"самый высокий — всего лишь третий разряд.\" This is understandable: the highest among tested is only \"third rank\". That means lower ranks are fourth? Actually if \"丙等\" is third, there are two better grades (甲 and 乙) that are absent. \"третий разряд\" implies there are \"first\" and \"second\" higher. That works. \"уровень «бин»\" would be natural for webnovel readers: \"высший — всего лишь уровень «бин».\" That's also understandable if the grade system uses \"цзя\" as top. Which is better? The book's audience is \"взрослые читатели вебновелл\" — they are used to \"уровень/ранг\" with names. So \"уровень «бин»\" is fine.\n\nNeed maybe use \"ранг\" instead of \"уровень\" because \"третий разряд\" is also a rank system. If we use \"уровень «цзя»\", \"уровень\" is not a \"звание\" but a \"level\". The original \"等\" is a \"класс\" (class). In Russian, \"класс «цзя»\" is better than \"уровень «цзя»\" because \"grade\" = \"класс\". Example: \"товар первого класса\" = \"甲等商品\". \"талант класса «цзя»\" = \"талант разряда «цзя»\". Hmm.\n\nLet's decide based on the \"balance 0.60\" and \"титулы, звания и реалии переводи по смыслу\". Maybe a combined \"разряд «цзя»\" is the strongest: \"разряд\" is a semantic translation of \"等\" (rank/grade), \"цзя\" is a transliteration of the grade label. This gives a foreignizing tint (0.60) and retains the Chinese label set. It's not fully \"по смыслу\" because \"цзя\" is transliterated, but at least the syntactic structure is Russian. \"уровень «цзя»\" is similar but \"уровень\" is less \"grade\" than \"разряд\". If I had to choose a professionally consistent glossary, I'd choose \"разряд «цзя»\", \"разряд «и»\", \"разряд «бин»\", \"разряд «дин»\". But is \"разряд «и»\" idiomatic? \"разряд \"и\"\" sounds like \"category 'i'\". In Russian, when using Chinese syllable \"и\" as a name, quotes are needed. That's okay.\n\nAlternatively \"ранг «Цзя»\" maybe more idiomatic in webnovels. \"ранг\" = rank, common in fantasy. \"разряд\" also.\n\nLet's search memory: In Russian translations of Chinese webnovels, \"甲等\" might be \"ранг А\" or \"уровень А\" because \"甲乙丙丁\" are often romanized as \"Jia, Yi, Bing, Ding\" or \"A, B, C, D\". The terms \"甲等\" and \"乙等\" in \"Reverend Insanity\" English translation: \"A grade\", \"B grade\". In Russian, perhaps \"ранг A\" would be the best. But the user specifically says \"transcription of names and realia: palladius\" and \"balance 0.60\" — not \"A/B/C/D\". So likely they want \"цзя/и/бин/дин\", not Latin letters.\n\nLet's look at the \"drafts\" variants: They include \"уровень «цзя»\", \"класс «Цзя»\", \"ранг Цзя\", \"талант первого разряда\", etc. No one suggested \"уровень A\" or \"ранг A\". So the draft translators did not map to Latin; they either transliterated or translated ordinally. Thus our options are within those. Among transliterations, \"уровень «...»\" is the most common. Among semantic, \"первый/второй/третий/низший разряд\" appears. The problem says \"Расхождение вариантов — сигнал, что термин трудный.\" We need pick one. The instruction \"титулы, звания и реалии переводи ПО СМЫСЛУ\" strongly points to \"разряд\". But \"баланс 0.60\" points to \"уровень «цзя»\".\n\nMaybe the origin \"banknote\" = \"банкнота\"? Wait, \"origin: banknote\" might mean the term originated from the \"banknote\" (money) not relevant. \"origin: both\" perhaps \"both POV\"? No.\n\nLet's read \"origin: banknote\" — Could be a typo for \"banknote\" in an automated termbase, perhaps \"origin: both\" vs \"origin: banknote\" indicates whether the term appears in both the original and translation? No.\n\nNo need.\n\nLet's think of \"丙等\" with \"等\" as a suffix: \"甲等\" means \"class A\" not \"first-class\". In Russian, \"разряд «цзя»\" uses a foreign noun? Actually \"Цзя\" here is not declined; \"разряд «Цзя»\" is a phrase where the label is an indeclinable noun. That is okay. \"уровень «Цзя»\" likewise. The grade labels are essentially names of levels. So \"Цзя\" is a proper name. In such a case, \"титулы, звания и реалии\" — a grade name is a \"собственное имя\" within a system? The \"name\" of the grade is \"Цзя\"; but the term \"甲等\" includes the generic \"等\". So translating \"等\" as \"уровень/разряд\" and keeping the grade name as \"Цзя\" is analogous to translating \"C-class\" as \"класс C\". That is standard. It is not \"транслитерация\" of the whole term, but a transcription of the grade label. The prompt says \"Транскрипция имён и реалий: palladius\" — \"Цзя\" is a \"реалия\" label, so transcription by Palladius. Then \"по смыслу\" applies to generic \"等\". This hybrid is actually quite defensible. The \"balance 0.60\" suggests exactly this. So \"уровень «цзя»\" etc. is plausible.\n\nWhich generic word? \"класс\" vs \"уровень\" vs \"разряд\" vs \"ранг\". The term \"等\" in Chinese is \"grade/class\". \"класс\" is semantically the closest. \"уровень\" is \"level\", which is an English corruption but common. \"разряд\" is \"category/grade\". \"ранг\" is \"rank\". Let's see Chinese \"甲等\" in dictionary: \"first class; first-rate; grade A\". \"等\" = \"class; grade; rank\". In Russian, \"класс\" is exactly \"class\" as in \"первый класс\", \"класс A\". So \"класс «цзя»\" is the most literal. However \"класс «И»\" is weird because \"класс\" also means \"social class\", but context disambiguates. \"разряд «цзя»\" is more precise for a hierarchical category. \"уровень «цзя»\" is less precise but genre-friendly.\n\nThe original \"资质\" = \"talent/aptitude\". \"甲等资质\" = \"talent of grade A\". In Russian, \"талант класса A\" is a set phrase? \"талант уровня A\" is more common in game contexts. \"талант разряда A\" awkward. \"класс таланта\" is used in \"талант высокого класса\". \"уровень таланта\" is natural. So \"уровень «цзя»\" collocates better with \"资质\" because \"уровень таланта\" is idiomatic. \"класс таланта\" less so but still. \"ранг таланта\" is common in fantasy. \"разряд таланта\" is used for sports categories. Since the grade is about a person's aptitude, \"уровень\" is natural: \"у него уровень таланта «цзя»\". Thus \"уровень «цзя»\".\n\nI think final should be \"уровень «цзя»\", \"уровень «и»\", \"уровень «бин»\", \"уровень «дин»\". Let's ensure \"и\" lowercase. In Russian typography, quotes are « » with spaces? No spaces: «и». So \"уровень «и»\". Good.\n\nBut wait: \"уровень «цзя»\" is a dictionary form; but in the text, \"甲等\" could be used as an attribute: \"甲等资质\" -> \"талант уровня «цзя»\". That matches. If \"甲等\" alone: \"最高只是个丙等\" -> \"высший — всего лишь уровень «бин».\" Works.\n\nLet's also consider \"уровень «цзя»\" vs \"уровень «Цзя».\" In Russian, \"Цзя\" is a transliterated Chinese syllable; it's not a proper name? It is a grade label, so lowercase in quotes might be fine. The drafts with quotes use lowercase for \"цзя\" and \"бин\" and \"дин\", but \"уровень «и»\" lowercase. Good.\n\nWe need output exactly four lines. No markdown. We'll use tab.",
 "prefill": null
}