[Throaway1982]

I wouldn't consider anyone "fluent" who has only 70% comprehension. More like 90%+. If you're assuming things based on context that is a marker of a low level of comprehension.

Im also a native English speaker and have to explain English words daily to other native English speakers. Dont really think that matters. Some words are more common than others.

[barrell]

I would say "full comprehension" would mean you don't need words and phrases explained to you on a daily basis.

And to each their own. Fluency is a bad metric because it means something different to everyone. If you live in a language, work in a language, and have friends in a language, most people would consider that fluent. I've met many, many people who qualify with a much lower comprehension level than 90%.

Also, speaking from experience, I'll often "comprehend a sentence 100% in another language". Then I'll really listen to it again and realize I'm not really sure about half of the words. I have a vague idea of most of them and in context my brain get's it and self-reports full comprehension.

I think "full comprehension" is a substantially higher bar than "fluency".

[Throaway1982]

"Also, speaking from experience, I'll often "comprehend a sentence 100% in another language". Then I'll really listen to it again and realize I'm not really sure about half of the words. I have a vague idea of most of them and in context my brain get's it and self-reports full comprehension. I think "full comprehension" is a substantially higher bar than "fluency"."

I get it, and in my experience, when I find myself relistening and not being sure about "half the words," it means Im not fluent!

[barrell]

I wasn’t claiming fluency in these languages, just making a point that comprehension is normally very over-exaggerated, and that “full comprehension” is a long way off from just average “comprehension”, and in most cases not needed to converse/listen/read. A big part of fluency is being able to deal with a certain level of ambiguity