UNARY_PERCENT

GOOGLE'S OWN PUBLISHED RESULT, and the single exception to this group's rule that nothing is published: UNARY_PERCENT's one-line description reads, verbatim, "Returns a value interpreted as a percentage; that is, `UNARY_PERCENT(100)` equals `1`." It is not in a Formula/Result table -- it is inside the sentence -- but it is a formula and its result, printed in the article body, so it is quoted here as published rather than derived. The same sentence is repeated verbatim in the See Also blocks of the TO_PERCENT and UPLUS pages. BATCH PROVENANCE (batch I, group 1 -- the last eight Google-documented functions in the corpus, closing the group A set sheets-lo-only-plan.md opened). This function has x == false in docs/data/compat.json: Microsoft does not document it 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 (2026-08-31) -- Google publishes no version number for these pages, so a bare URL dates nothing. WHAT GOOGLE PRINTS ON THESE EIGHT PAGES IS LESS THAN IT LOOKS, AND EVERY NOTE SAYS SO. Each page carries a 'Sample Usage' block of FORMULAS WITH NO RESULTS and an 'Examples' section that is a live embedded spreadsheet rather than article text, so ACROSS ALL EIGHT PAGES THERE IS NOT ONE PUBLISHED FORMULA/RESULT PAIR IN THE BODY. Every expected value in this group is therefore DERIVED from the page's own stated semantics and names the sentence it came from; the one exception is UNARY_PERCENT, whose one-line description states its result inline. No value was taken from a search snippet, a blog or a mirror. LIBREOFFICE: probed before execution 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 on every build, so the expected values below describe Google Sheets and the LibreOffice column records absence. (A separate check confirms the absence is real rather than a name-mapping artefact: round-tripping these eight names through LibreOffice's own formula parser and its .xlsx export writes them back lower-cased -- 'to_date', 'uminus' -- which is what LibreOffice does with an identifier it does not recognise as a function at all.) Google's UNARY_PERCENT page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3093982.

DERIVED from the published 100 -> 1 relation applied to the page's other Sample Usage formula, UNARY_PERCENT(93), which is printed with no result: a value interpreted as a percentage is one hundredth of its face value, so 93 gives 0.93. Google's UNARY_PERCENT page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3093982.

A structural assertion with no derived constant, from "Returns a value interpreted as a percentage": whatever the engine means by the literal 50%, UNARY_PERCENT(50) must mean the same thing. This is the case that would catch an implementation that divided by 100 only for display. Google's UNARY_PERCENT page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3093982.

A structural assertion. THE PAGE'S OWN INVERSE CLAIM IS DELIBERATELY NOT ASSERTED: the Notes bullet says "UNARY_PERCENT is roughly equivalent to the inverse of TO_PERCENT", and the word ROUGHLY is doing real work -- TO_PERCENT changes a format and leaves the value alone, while UNARY_PERCENT changes the value, so the two are not inverses at the value layer at all and a case asserting that they are would be asserting something the page hedges. What is asserted instead is the unhedged rule applied twice: 10000 -> 100 -> 1. Google's UNARY_PERCENT page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3093982.

GOOGLE'S OWN PUBLISHED RESULT, and the single exception to this group's rule that nothing is published: UNARY_PERCENT's one-line description reads, verbatim, "Returns a value interpreted as a percentage; that is, `UNARY_PERCENT(100)` equals `1`." It is not in a Formula/Result table -- it is inside the sentence -- but it is a formula and its result, printed in the article body, so it is quoted here as published rather than derived. The same sentence is repeated verbatim in the See Also blocks of the TO_PERCENT and UPLUS pages. BATCH PROVENANCE (batch I, group 1 -- the last eight Google-documented functions in the corpus, closing the group A set sheets-lo-only-plan.md opened). This function has x == false in docs/data/compat.json: Microsoft does not document it 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 (2026-08-31) -- Google publishes no version number for these pages, so a bare URL dates nothing. WHAT GOOGLE PRINTS ON THESE EIGHT PAGES IS LESS THAN IT LOOKS, AND EVERY NOTE SAYS SO. Each page carries a 'Sample Usage' block of FORMULAS WITH NO RESULTS and an 'Examples' section that is a live embedded spreadsheet rather than article text, so ACROSS ALL EIGHT PAGES THERE IS NOT ONE PUBLISHED FORMULA/RESULT PAIR IN THE BODY. Every expected value in this group is therefore DERIVED from the page's own stated semantics and names the sentence it came from; the one exception is UNARY_PERCENT, whose one-line description states its result inline. No value was taken from a search snippet, a blog or a mirror. LIBREOFFICE: probed before execution 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 on every build, so the expected values below describe Google Sheets and the LibreOffice column records absence. (A separate check confirms the absence is real rather than a name-mapping artefact: round-tripping these eight names through LibreOffice's own formula parser and its .xlsx export writes them back lower-cased -- 'to_date', 'uminus' -- which is what LibreOffice does with an identifier it does not recognise as a function at all.) Google's UNARY_PERCENT page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3093982.

DERIVED from the published 100 -> 1 relation applied to the page's other Sample Usage formula, UNARY_PERCENT(93), which is printed with no result: a value interpreted as a percentage is one hundredth of its face value, so 93 gives 0.93. Google's UNARY_PERCENT page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3093982.

A structural assertion with no derived constant, from "Returns a value interpreted as a percentage": whatever the engine means by the literal 50%, UNARY_PERCENT(50) must mean the same thing. This is the case that would catch an implementation that divided by 100 only for display. Google's UNARY_PERCENT page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3093982.

A structural assertion. THE PAGE'S OWN INVERSE CLAIM IS DELIBERATELY NOT ASSERTED: the Notes bullet says "UNARY_PERCENT is roughly equivalent to the inverse of TO_PERCENT", and the word ROUGHLY is doing real work -- TO_PERCENT changes a format and leaves the value alone, while UNARY_PERCENT changes the value, so the two are not inverses at the value layer at all and a case asserting that they are would be asserting something the page hedges. What is asserted instead is the unhedged rule applied twice: 10000 -> 100 -> 1. Google's UNARY_PERCENT page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3093982.

GOOGLE'S OWN PUBLISHED RESULT, and the single exception to this group's rule that nothing is published: UNARY_PERCENT's one-line description reads, verbatim, "Returns a value interpreted as a percentage; that is, `UNARY_PERCENT(100)` equals `1`." It is not in a Formula/Result table -- it is inside the sentence -- but it is a formula and its result, printed in the article body, so it is quoted here as published rather than derived. The same sentence is repeated verbatim in the See Also blocks of the TO_PERCENT and UPLUS pages. BATCH PROVENANCE (batch I, group 1 -- the last eight Google-documented functions in the corpus, closing the group A set sheets-lo-only-plan.md opened). This function has x == false in docs/data/compat.json: Microsoft does not document it 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 (2026-08-31) -- Google publishes no version number for these pages, so a bare URL dates nothing. WHAT GOOGLE PRINTS ON THESE EIGHT PAGES IS LESS THAN IT LOOKS, AND EVERY NOTE SAYS SO. Each page carries a 'Sample Usage' block of FORMULAS WITH NO RESULTS and an 'Examples' section that is a live embedded spreadsheet rather than article text, so ACROSS ALL EIGHT PAGES THERE IS NOT ONE PUBLISHED FORMULA/RESULT PAIR IN THE BODY. Every expected value in this group is therefore DERIVED from the page's own stated semantics and names the sentence it came from; the one exception is UNARY_PERCENT, whose one-line description states its result inline. No value was taken from a search snippet, a blog or a mirror. LIBREOFFICE: probed before execution 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 on every build, so the expected values below describe Google Sheets and the LibreOffice column records absence. (A separate check confirms the absence is real rather than a name-mapping artefact: round-tripping these eight names through LibreOffice's own formula parser and its .xlsx export writes them back lower-cased -- 'to_date', 'uminus' -- which is what LibreOffice does with an identifier it does not recognise as a function at all.) Google's UNARY_PERCENT page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3093982.

DERIVED from the published 100 -> 1 relation applied to the page's other Sample Usage formula, UNARY_PERCENT(93), which is printed with no result: a value interpreted as a percentage is one hundredth of its face value, so 93 gives 0.93. Google's UNARY_PERCENT page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3093982.

A structural assertion with no derived constant, from "Returns a value interpreted as a percentage": whatever the engine means by the literal 50%, UNARY_PERCENT(50) must mean the same thing. This is the case that would catch an implementation that divided by 100 only for display. Google's UNARY_PERCENT page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3093982.

A structural assertion. THE PAGE'S OWN INVERSE CLAIM IS DELIBERATELY NOT ASSERTED: the Notes bullet says "UNARY_PERCENT is roughly equivalent to the inverse of TO_PERCENT", and the word ROUGHLY is doing real work -- TO_PERCENT changes a format and leaves the value alone, while UNARY_PERCENT changes the value, so the two are not inverses at the value layer at all and a case asserting that they are would be asserting something the page hedges. What is asserted instead is the unhedged rule applied twice: 10000 -> 100 -> 1. Google's UNARY_PERCENT page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3093982.