Thanks for the clear explanation.
What you are seeing after the "emulate" is the text message that was sent to VC from Tasker.
The problem is that it is sending VC text that does not match how your commands are written. VC can only execute commands that are actually in your command tree.
If Google always sends the word "percent" and in your VC command you have used the symbol "%" instead, then the easiest solution is to change your command phrase in VC so that it also says "percent."
If Google is sending VC the text "230" and your command does not include a range of values up to 230 -- again -- VC can't execute the command because that doesn't correspond to an existing command.
As James says at the beginning of the video tutorial for using Tasker and elsewhere on the forum, the reason that VoxWav is generally a better option than Google is because when you are using Google, Google is interpreting what you are saying without having any context. It's just "guessing".
It then sends its interpretation
as text to VC (via Tasker). When you use the "advanced" version, it is sending several of its top interpretations and if any of those match your command then VC will execute it. However, if none of Google's interpretations match your command there's not much that can be done.
VoxWav, by contrast, is sending audio to VC, and leaving the interpretation to VC -- VC has the context to properly interpret your commands. That is how it knows that you're saying "dim the office lights to 30%" and not "dim the office lights 230 percent".
If you notice a pattern, you can try to re-write your commands in VC to better reflect how Google tends to interpret you, but there is nothing else that can be done on the VC end if you want to use the Tasker solution.
As to the question of why we didn't understand your original posts: It's important to be precise when explaining computer problems and solutions, and very easy for users to mean many different things. Different things hint at different causes and require different solutions.
If only one-word commands were understood but not two-word commands, that would indicate a particular problem, whereas "short commands" means something different, and the specific example of a long command that clearly involves payloads may indicate something entirely different, but short commands may also include payloads and you provided no example of a short command as a basis of comparison.
It's just easier and more efficient on all sides if we
try to be concise, or demonstrate with screenshots etc. when words won't cut it.
