ISEMAIL

NOTHING ON THIS PAGE IS A PUBLISHED RESULT. ISEMAIL's page prints three Sample Usage formulas and no results, and it defines validity only as: "This checks if the value follows a commonly accepted format for email addresses but doesn't verify its existence." There is no regex, no character rule and no statement about top-level domains. The three TRUE cases below are the page's OWN sample inputs, on the reading that Google would not print an address as a sample of an email-validity function if it were not one; that reading is stated here rather than dressed up as a Google claim. Google's ISEMAIL page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3256503. BATCH PROVENANCE (batch H, the first Sheets/LibreOffice-only batch). Every function in this batch has x == false in docs/data/compat.json: it is a Google Sheets function that Microsoft does not document at all, so this corpus makes NO claim about it in that engine and nothing here is measured against that vendor's documentation. The authority is Google's own support.google.com function page, cited by full URL and by the date it was read -- Google publishes no version number for these pages, so a bare URL dates nothing. WHAT GOOGLE ACTUALLY PRINTS, WHICH IS LESS THAN IT LOOKS: most of these pages carry a 'Sample Usage' block of FORMULAS WITH NO RESULTS. Where a value below is Google's own published output the note says so; where it is derived from the page's stated semantics the note says that instead, and says from which sentence. No value in this batch was taken from a search snippet, a blog or a mirror. LIBREOFFICE: probed on all four pinned builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) in five storage spellings -- plain, _xlfn., COM.MICROSOFT., ORG.OPENOFFICE. and _xlfn.ORG.OPENOFFICE. -- and #NAME? under every one of them, so the expected values below describe Google Sheets and the LibreOffice column records absence.

NOTHING ON THIS PAGE IS A PUBLISHED RESULT. ISEMAIL's page prints three Sample Usage formulas and no results, and it defines validity only as: "This checks if the value follows a commonly accepted format for email addresses but doesn't verify its existence." There is no regex, no character rule and no statement about top-level domains. The three TRUE cases below are the page's OWN sample inputs, on the reading that Google would not print an address as a sample of an email-validity function if it were not one; that reading is stated here rather than dressed up as a Google claim. Google's ISEMAIL page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3256503.

NOTHING ON THIS PAGE IS A PUBLISHED RESULT. ISEMAIL's page prints three Sample Usage formulas and no results, and it defines validity only as: "This checks if the value follows a commonly accepted format for email addresses but doesn't verify its existence." There is no regex, no character rule and no statement about top-level domains. The three TRUE cases below are the page's OWN sample inputs, on the reading that Google would not print an address as a sample of an email-validity function if it were not one; that reading is stated here rather than dressed up as a Google claim. Google's ISEMAIL page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3256503. The .xyz sample is the page's own and is the only hint it gives that the check is not restricted to familiar top-level domains -- it never says so in words.

DERIVED, and deliberately far from the boundary. The page defines validity only as a "commonly accepted format", so this corpus asserts FALSE only for an input no format could accept, and asserts nothing about the interesting near-misses (missing top-level domain, trailing dot, quoted local part) that the page never discusses. Google's ISEMAIL page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3256503.

NOTHING ON THIS PAGE IS A PUBLISHED RESULT. ISEMAIL's page prints three Sample Usage formulas and no results, and it defines validity only as: "This checks if the value follows a commonly accepted format for email addresses but doesn't verify its existence." There is no regex, no character rule and no statement about top-level domains. The three TRUE cases below are the page's OWN sample inputs, on the reading that Google would not print an address as a sample of an email-validity function if it were not one; that reading is stated here rather than dressed up as a Google claim. Google's ISEMAIL page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3256503. BATCH PROVENANCE (batch H, the first Sheets/LibreOffice-only batch). Every function in this batch has x == false in docs/data/compat.json: it is a Google Sheets function that Microsoft does not document at all, so this corpus makes NO claim about it in that engine and nothing here is measured against that vendor's documentation. The authority is Google's own support.google.com function page, cited by full URL and by the date it was read -- Google publishes no version number for these pages, so a bare URL dates nothing. WHAT GOOGLE ACTUALLY PRINTS, WHICH IS LESS THAN IT LOOKS: most of these pages carry a 'Sample Usage' block of FORMULAS WITH NO RESULTS. Where a value below is Google's own published output the note says so; where it is derived from the page's stated semantics the note says that instead, and says from which sentence. No value in this batch was taken from a search snippet, a blog or a mirror. LIBREOFFICE: probed on all four pinned builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) in five storage spellings -- plain, _xlfn., COM.MICROSOFT., ORG.OPENOFFICE. and _xlfn.ORG.OPENOFFICE. -- and #NAME? under every one of them, so the expected values below describe Google Sheets and the LibreOffice column records absence.

NOTHING ON THIS PAGE IS A PUBLISHED RESULT. ISEMAIL's page prints three Sample Usage formulas and no results, and it defines validity only as: "This checks if the value follows a commonly accepted format for email addresses but doesn't verify its existence." There is no regex, no character rule and no statement about top-level domains. The three TRUE cases below are the page's OWN sample inputs, on the reading that Google would not print an address as a sample of an email-validity function if it were not one; that reading is stated here rather than dressed up as a Google claim. Google's ISEMAIL page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3256503.

NOTHING ON THIS PAGE IS A PUBLISHED RESULT. ISEMAIL's page prints three Sample Usage formulas and no results, and it defines validity only as: "This checks if the value follows a commonly accepted format for email addresses but doesn't verify its existence." There is no regex, no character rule and no statement about top-level domains. The three TRUE cases below are the page's OWN sample inputs, on the reading that Google would not print an address as a sample of an email-validity function if it were not one; that reading is stated here rather than dressed up as a Google claim. Google's ISEMAIL page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3256503. The .xyz sample is the page's own and is the only hint it gives that the check is not restricted to familiar top-level domains -- it never says so in words.

DERIVED, and deliberately far from the boundary. The page defines validity only as a "commonly accepted format", so this corpus asserts FALSE only for an input no format could accept, and asserts nothing about the interesting near-misses (missing top-level domain, trailing dot, quoted local part) that the page never discusses. Google's ISEMAIL page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3256503.

NOTHING ON THIS PAGE IS A PUBLISHED RESULT. ISEMAIL's page prints three Sample Usage formulas and no results, and it defines validity only as: "This checks if the value follows a commonly accepted format for email addresses but doesn't verify its existence." There is no regex, no character rule and no statement about top-level domains. The three TRUE cases below are the page's OWN sample inputs, on the reading that Google would not print an address as a sample of an email-validity function if it were not one; that reading is stated here rather than dressed up as a Google claim. Google's ISEMAIL page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3256503. BATCH PROVENANCE (batch H, the first Sheets/LibreOffice-only batch). Every function in this batch has x == false in docs/data/compat.json: it is a Google Sheets function that Microsoft does not document at all, so this corpus makes NO claim about it in that engine and nothing here is measured against that vendor's documentation. The authority is Google's own support.google.com function page, cited by full URL and by the date it was read -- Google publishes no version number for these pages, so a bare URL dates nothing. WHAT GOOGLE ACTUALLY PRINTS, WHICH IS LESS THAN IT LOOKS: most of these pages carry a 'Sample Usage' block of FORMULAS WITH NO RESULTS. Where a value below is Google's own published output the note says so; where it is derived from the page's stated semantics the note says that instead, and says from which sentence. No value in this batch was taken from a search snippet, a blog or a mirror. LIBREOFFICE: probed on all four pinned builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) in five storage spellings -- plain, _xlfn., COM.MICROSOFT., ORG.OPENOFFICE. and _xlfn.ORG.OPENOFFICE. -- and #NAME? under every one of them, so the expected values below describe Google Sheets and the LibreOffice column records absence.

NOTHING ON THIS PAGE IS A PUBLISHED RESULT. ISEMAIL's page prints three Sample Usage formulas and no results, and it defines validity only as: "This checks if the value follows a commonly accepted format for email addresses but doesn't verify its existence." There is no regex, no character rule and no statement about top-level domains. The three TRUE cases below are the page's OWN sample inputs, on the reading that Google would not print an address as a sample of an email-validity function if it were not one; that reading is stated here rather than dressed up as a Google claim. Google's ISEMAIL page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3256503.

NOTHING ON THIS PAGE IS A PUBLISHED RESULT. ISEMAIL's page prints three Sample Usage formulas and no results, and it defines validity only as: "This checks if the value follows a commonly accepted format for email addresses but doesn't verify its existence." There is no regex, no character rule and no statement about top-level domains. The three TRUE cases below are the page's OWN sample inputs, on the reading that Google would not print an address as a sample of an email-validity function if it were not one; that reading is stated here rather than dressed up as a Google claim. Google's ISEMAIL page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3256503. The .xyz sample is the page's own and is the only hint it gives that the check is not restricted to familiar top-level domains -- it never says so in words.

DERIVED, and deliberately far from the boundary. The page defines validity only as a "commonly accepted format", so this corpus asserts FALSE only for an input no format could accept, and asserts nothing about the interesting near-misses (missing top-level domain, trailing dot, quoted local part) that the page never discusses. Google's ISEMAIL page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3256503.