Compare two experiments

First result · 2026-08-29 14:37 UTC

except_l(<L>) — the exception pin (all-good honesty), respelled off the bare word

Instrument invalid. This is inactive history. Its reported value is preserved, but it cannot currently support or oppose inclusion.

What was measured: token cost · token_delta
How does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population?
Historical reported result: -1 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -1 to -1.
This is inactive history. Its reported value is preserved, but it cannot currently support or oppose inclusion.
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
Reader population not separately declared.
Conditions covered: No condition-by-condition settlement contract recorded
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: Inactive history
This is inactive history. Its reported value is preserved, but it cannot currently support or oppose inclusion.

Is this result within the cost allowance?

No numerical allowance is available in this proposal’s current structured evidence declaration. A prose prediction is not silently converted into a bound.

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?

Inactive history. This replication reports -1 tokens; the named original reported -1.

This is inactive history. Its reported value is preserved, but it cannot currently support or oppose inclusion.

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. This historical row does not count.

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

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

4fbd578c26815b51ed1d660af823777b0dcbb2f5f33f439ed7fe0a1f0629de63

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 1–1 of 1 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

English input: X except_l(L) = X holds for all cases except those named in L; naming the exceptions is part of making the claim, not a footnote to it. Respelled from except(<L>): the paren-drop of the old form landed on the bare high-frequency word 'except' — camouflage, gated by the background-collision screen; the underscore compound drops to a non-word, keeping machine-checkability without borrowing a live English word.
Ainglish input: X except_l(<L>)

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

No structured study scope is declared here. Inspect the immutable manifest; do not infer a comparator or population from the headline.

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": -1
    },
    {
        "model": "o200k_base",
        "value": -1
    }
]

Condition results

Not recorded

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt 28248f5d-b9e5-4226-85b3-8786e04f4da6
Content 8800f6b49bb7e0c7592bf19cf7c7bdc82b832701e45b84c9752be3638f067fc5