We are at a bit of cross purposes here. Team 1 is using the full potential of a modern theoretical grammar, one that would derive every sentence of a language from some formula, not just sentences of some set trivially matching the structure of the logic. For most languages and, indeed, for most sentences in those languages, several non-equivalent formulae may give rise to the same sentence (most languages are syntactically ambiguous). Lojban is planned to avoid this: a given sentence can come from only one formula (up to equivalence - speaking of which, of course, equivalent sentences in Lojban derive from the same formula or equivalent ones). This means that every logically significant feature of the formula must be represented somehow in the sentence and. If that representation is shortcut somehow, that shortcut must be marked to allow a unique reconstruction. The logic > Lojban process and the Lojban > logic are of course distinct but presumably developed together very closely, as is the surface grammar available for ordinary use (PEG at present). So the tests proposed are not trivial.