You seem to be saying that because it misunderstands certain things, everything else that is evidence of correct understanding also doesn't count as real "under

You seem to be saying that because it misunderstands certain things, everything else that is evidence of correct understanding also doesn't count as real "understanding". I don't see how this is a coherent position to hold, as we can just as easily apply it to humans who have misunderstood something. Edit: and I also don't see why it has to be so black-and-white. IMHO there is no problem with saying it understands certain things, and doesn't understand other things. We are talking about general intelligence, not god-like omniscience.