First result · 2026-09-08 13:57 UTC
mean-outcome / likeliest-outcome — an expected result need not be a possible result
Counts in current evidence decisions. This row currently contributes to evidence decisions. Its direction is separate from whether the proposal is ready for adoption.
- What was measured
- token cost ·
token_delta
How does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population? - Reported result
- -3 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -3.96875 to -3.Fewer tokens on the named current tokenizers; this is the encoded-length difference, not the proposal decision.
- English comparison
- English comparison not recorded as a structured label
Declared by the submitter; not a certification of equivalent information.
- Tokenizer conditions
- Literal encoding cost on the named current tokenizers; not comprehension.
- Named instruments
cl100k_base,o200k_base,p50k_baseReader population not separately declared.
- Conditions covered
- Separate outcomes retained for all 2 declared conditions
mean-outcome,likeliest-outcomeAn overall average can hide a weak condition. A condition list is not proof that every form or claim in the proposal was tested.
- Settlement role
- Disagrees with the named original
This eligible row adds one disagreement. An adverse or null direction is a valid result and remains visible.
- Is this result within the cost allowance?
- This headline is within the allowance.
The reported difference is -3 tokens; the current declaration allows at most 6 tokens.
This compares Ainglish minus English with the current declaration, which may differ from the declaration when the result was filed. It checks the headline only: inspect any required per-form and per-tokenizer results too.
- Has the original estimate been independently reproduced?
- Disagrees with the named original.
This replication reports -3 tokens; the named original reported -2.
This eligible row adds one disagreement. An adverse or null direction is a valid result and remains visible.
Reproduction asks whether fresh-input findings agree under the settlement rule. It does not ask whether either value satisfies the cost allowance.
Being within the cost allowance is not a completed prerequisite. Reproducing an original estimate is a separate check, not proof that the allowance is met. Current evidence status, settlement and every declared result still determine readiness.
How can one check pass while the other does not?
For example, an allowance of at most +3 tokens and an original estimate of +3 ask different questions. A replication of −0.5 is within that allowance but may disagree with the original. A replication of +3.25 may reproduce +3 within the settlement tolerance while exceeding the allowance.
These are illustrative numbers, not a new settlement rule. A cost saving is not a comprehension result, and a reproduced premium does not by itself mean a proposal should be adopted or rejected.
This result checks a named original, not every experiment on the proposal. Read its target original
Compare with the exact target attempt
Every declared condition must agree. Overlapping overall intervals alone do not confirm this original.
How much input text was reused?
100.0% of complete English–Ainglish pairs are fresh.
Separate-arm overlap is unavailable or has not been computed. This does not mean zero reuse.
Exact text comparisons only; repeated occurrences count separately. Shared text can deserve scrutiny even when each complete pair is new. These arm counts are descriptive and do not change settlement eligibility.
Declared target content identity
d9bc25ff537cc0d5a03dcb21b43c3eda434e547ab0f3af9b9c3c3578aa44f89bDoes the overall result hide differences between conditions?
| Condition | Reported difference | Reported interval |
|---|---|---|
mean-outcome | -3 | Not recorded |
likeliest-outcome | -3 | Not recorded |
A missing condition interval is not zero uncertainty. An overall interval cannot substitute for agreement in every load-bearing condition.
Inspect actual inputs and recorded answers
The comparison label is the submitter’s declaration, not a semantic certification. Check that both versions preserve the information needed to answer the same question.
Numbers count only readable inputs attached to this receipt. They are not the experiment’s declared sample size or the number of reader calls.
Showing 1–6 of 64 readable, inline study items, in stored order—not a selection of successes. 0 control items are kept separate.
Each result has its own input pages. Positions across the two studies do not imply matched cases.
Input 1 · sat-oc-c-00-mean
- English input
- Under satdist-c00, the probability-weighted mean is 3/2.
- Ainglish input
- 3/2 is mean-outcome(satdist-c00).
- Condition
- mean-outcome
Input 2 · sat-oc-c-00-mode
- English input
- Under satdist-c00, 0 has the highest outcome probability, ties allowed.
- Ainglish input
- 0 is likeliest-outcome(satdist-c00).
- Condition
- likeliest-outcome
Input 3 · sat-oc-c-01-mean
- English input
- Under satdist-c01, the probability-weighted mean is 2/5.
- Ainglish input
- 2/5 is mean-outcome(satdist-c01).
- Condition
- mean-outcome
Input 4 · sat-oc-c-01-mode
- English input
- Under satdist-c01, -2 has the highest outcome probability, ties allowed.
- Ainglish input
- -2 is likeliest-outcome(satdist-c01).
- Condition
- likeliest-outcome
Input 5 · sat-oc-c-02-mean
- English input
- Under satdist-c02, the probability-weighted mean is 3/2.
- Ainglish input
- 3/2 is mean-outcome(satdist-c02).
- Condition
- mean-outcome
Input 6 · sat-oc-c-02-mode
- English input
- Under satdist-c02, 1 has the highest outcome probability, ties allowed.
- Ainglish input
- 1 is likeliest-outcome(satdist-c02).
- Condition
- likeliest-outcome
Recorded input digest: 1efbd2f4c8ce0f52051ff92bb202d03c32f35ae7c7ece46776a312f100b16d18
Prompts, reference material and other context can live elsewhere in the specification. Inputs and keys alone do not reconstruct every reader call or establish a fair comparison.
Declared population, method and retained outcomes
- Compared with
- registered surface versus concise meaning-complete careful English
- Tested population
- 64 prospective authored outcome-careful pairs, equal marker weights; fixed reference variants are not independent semantic frames
- Unit tested
- one complete claim sentence with exactly shared resolved references and units
- How results combine
- equal complete-pair mean within each tokenizer, then maximum tokenizer mean (least-favourable) across the three; retain each marker separately
These are the study author’s declarations. A finding applies to this tested scope; this summary does not establish that another study is comparable.
Absolute arm results, reader-specific results and condition results below are retained values, not a newly pooled analysis. Accuracy arms use fractions from 0 to 1; their difference uses percentage points.
Absolute arm results
Not recorded
Reader or tokenizer results
[
{
"model": "cl100k_base",
"value": -3.96875
},
{
"model": "o200k_base",
"value": -3.96875
},
{
"model": "p50k_base",
"value": -3
}
]
Condition results
[
{
"id": "mean-outcome",
"weight": 1,
"share": 0.5,
"value": -3,
"value_lo": null,
"value_hi": null,
"arms": null,
"resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
},
{
"id": "likeliest-outcome",
"weight": 1,
"share": 0.5,
"value": -3,
"value_lo": null,
"value_hi": null,
"arms": null,
"resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
}
]
Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history
Attempt 0b73780e-cb60-43c4-a73b-abaa5fd397b5
Content 4e664b27ea6103c0586a3e57008ce387245274dd72b0c1e2c35d114f9a25880b