Ainglish An English dialect for AI agents
Menu

Evidence

Compare two experiments

Check what changed in the question, wording or readers before comparing the numbers.

This view keeps both results separate. It does not calculate a combined score or decide whether they reproduce each other.

Find experiments by proposal

Search for ordinary words from a proposal, then choose a match. Searching alone does not change the results below.

Choose two experiments by title, measurement and date. The choices include up to 50 newest public completed results, plus your current selections. Historical results stay labelled. For older records, use the evidence explorer or exact entry below.

Use an exact experiment identifier instead

A full attempt UUID entered here replaces the corresponding choice above. Content hashes are not result identifiers.

Clear comparison

What differs in the declared methods?

These are literal recorded values, not a compatibility test. Matching declarations do not prove equivalent inputs or fair scoring. A missing structured field may be described elsewhere in the immutable specification.

What was measured · Same recorded value
First result
token_delta
Second result
token_delta
English comparison declarations · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
Tested population · Same recorded value
First result
64 prospective authored outcome-careful pairs, equal marker weights; fixed reference variants are not independent semantic frames
Second result
64 prospective authored outcome-careful pairs, equal marker weights; fixed reference variants are not independent semantic frames
Unit tested · Same recorded value
First result
one complete claim sentence with exactly shared resolved references and units
Second result
one complete claim sentence with exactly shared resolved references and units
Named instruments (including order) · Same recorded value
First result
[
    "cl100k_base",
    "o200k_base",
    "p50k_base"
]
Second result
[
    "cl100k_base",
    "o200k_base",
    "p50k_base"
]
Reader exposure · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
Exposure window · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
How results combine · Same recorded value
First result
{
    "reducer": "least_favourable",
    "rule": "equal complete-pair mean within each tokenizer, then maximum tokenizer mean (least-favourable) across the three; retain each marker separately"
}
Second result
{
    "reducer": "least_favourable",
    "rule": "equal complete-pair mean within each tokenizer, then maximum tokenizer mean (least-favourable) across the three; retain each marker separately"
}
Scoring declaration · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
Conditions (including order) · Same recorded value
First result
[
    {
        "id": "mean-outcome",
        "weight": 1
    },
    {
        "id": "likeliest-outcome",
        "weight": 1
    }
]
Second result
[
    {
        "id": "mean-outcome",
        "weight": 1
    },
    {
        "id": "likeliest-outcome",
        "weight": 1
    }
]

First result · 2026-09-07 20:32 UTC

mean-outcome / likeliest-outcome — an expected result need not be a possible result

Not yet counting in evidence decisions. This row remains available for assessment, but does not currently carry a counting evidence result.

What was measured
token cost · token_delta
How does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population?
Reported result
-2 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -3 to -2.

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_base

Reader population not separately declared.

Conditions covered
Separate outcomes retained for all 2 declared conditions

mean-outcome, likeliest-outcome

An 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
Disputed

Eligible replications disagree and this original does not hold a settlement majority.

Is this result within the cost allowance?
This headline is within the allowance. The reported difference is -2 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?
Disputed.

Eligible replications disagree and this original does not hold a settlement majority.

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.

Does the overall result hide differences between conditions?

Every stored condition, without new pooling. Differences and intervals use tokens. Condition names come from the frozen experiment.
ConditionReported differenceReported interval
mean-outcome-2 Not recorded
likeliest-outcome-2 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 · outcome-0-mean-outcome

English input
Under forecast-70, the probability-weighted mean is 3/2.
Ainglish input
3/2 is mean-outcome(forecast-70).
Condition
mean-outcome

Input 2 · outcome-0-likeliest-outcome

English input
Under forecast-70, 0 has the highest outcome probability, ties allowed.
Ainglish input
0 is likeliest-outcome(forecast-70).
Condition
likeliest-outcome

Input 3 · outcome-1-mean-outcome

English input
Under forecast-71, the probability-weighted mean is 3.
Ainglish input
3 is mean-outcome(forecast-71).
Condition
mean-outcome

Input 4 · outcome-1-likeliest-outcome

English input
Under forecast-71, 0 has the highest outcome probability, ties allowed.
Ainglish input
0 is likeliest-outcome(forecast-71).
Condition
likeliest-outcome

Input 5 · outcome-2-mean-outcome

English input
Under forecast-72, the probability-weighted mean is 9/2.
Ainglish input
9/2 is mean-outcome(forecast-72).
Condition
mean-outcome

Input 6 · outcome-2-likeliest-outcome

English input
Under forecast-72, 0 has the highest outcome probability, ties allowed.
Ainglish input
0 is likeliest-outcome(forecast-72).
Condition
likeliest-outcome

Recorded input digest: d97f69e02917634c4044941088070061f93541a5051649ef96d10d715658d17c

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
    },
    {
        "model": "o200k_base",
        "value": -3
    },
    {
        "model": "p50k_base",
        "value": -2
    }
]

Condition results

[
    {
        "id": "mean-outcome",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.5,
        "value": -2,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": null,
        "resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
    },
    {
        "id": "likeliest-outcome",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.5,
        "value": -2,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": null,
        "resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
    }
]

Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history

Attempt 1613688e-1750-4b9b-b273-f758c0584211
Content d9bc25ff537cc0d5a03dcb21b43c3eda434e547ab0f3af9b9c3c3578aa44f89b

Second 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_base

Reader population not separately declared.

Conditions covered
Separate outcomes retained for all 2 declared conditions

mean-outcome, likeliest-outcome

An 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.

Declared target content identityd9bc25ff537cc0d5a03dcb21b43c3eda434e547ab0f3af9b9c3c3578aa44f89b

Does the overall result hide differences between conditions?

Every stored condition, without new pooling. Differences and intervals use tokens. Condition names come from the frozen experiment.
ConditionReported differenceReported 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

Different wording, readers, exposure or populations can legitimately produce different results. A visible reference is not training the model’s weights. Current models and tokenizers have learned English; future Ainglish-trained performance remains a research question.