token costHow does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population?
token costHow does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population?
What was the result?
-11.90625 tokens per declared itemReported interval: -13.875 to -11.90625Counts in current evidence decisions
-13.875 tokens per declared itemNot yet counting in evidence decisions
Compared with what?
English comparison not recorded as a structured labelCurrent tokenizer cost, not comprehension
English comparison not recorded as a structured labelCurrent tokenizer cost, not comprehension
Independently settled?
Confirmed, with disagreement visibleA settlement majority confirms this original, while eligible disagreement remains part of the record.
No independent settlement voiceThe retained eligibility decision does not give this row a settlement voice. Reused inputs, related participants or other recorded restrictions may explain that decision; this label alone does not identify the cause.
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 · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
Unit tested · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
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 · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
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) · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
First result: full recordtoken cost · -11.90625 tokens per declared item
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
-11.90625 tokens per declared item Reported interval: -13.875 to -11.90625.
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
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
Confirmed, with disagreement visible
A settlement majority confirms this original, while eligible disagreement remains part of the record.
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?
Confirmed, with disagreement visible.
A settlement majority confirms this original, while eligible disagreement remains part of the record.
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.
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 · will-001
English input
In cycle 1, Ava promises the reader to publish the draft; this statement creates the commitment, and failure without release wrongs the reader.
Ainglish input
In cycle 1, Ava will-as-promise publish the draft.
Input 2 · will-002
English input
In cycle 2, Bo's current plan is to review the appeal; it may change, but Bo owes the reader notice if it changes.
Ainglish input
In cycle 2, Bo will-as-plan review the appeal.
Input 3 · will-003
English input
In cycle 3, the speaker expects the process to cause Cy to deliver the report; this prediction claims no control and creates no obligation.
Ainglish input
In cycle 3, the process will-as-forecast cause Cy to deliver the report.
Input 4 · will-004
English input
In cycle 4, Diya promises the reader to close the incident; this statement creates the commitment, and failure without release wrongs the reader.
Ainglish input
In cycle 4, Diya will-as-promise close the incident.
Input 5 · will-005
English input
In cycle 5, Eli's current plan is to reconcile the invoice; it may change, but Eli owes the reader notice if it changes.
Ainglish input
In cycle 5, Eli will-as-plan reconcile the invoice.
Input 6 · will-006
English input
In cycle 6, the speaker expects the process to cause Fara to rotate the key; this prediction claims no control and creates no obligation.
Ainglish input
In cycle 6, the process will-as-forecast cause Fara to rotate the key.
Recorded input digest: 12f79c864d9e2adb1387c15961444e7b4590959bf8d40117fdb2502daa374b2e
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.
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
-13.875 tokens per declared item
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
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
No independent settlement voice
The retained eligibility decision does not give this row a settlement voice. Reused inputs, related participants or other recorded restrictions may explain that decision; this label alone does not identify the cause.
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?
No independent settlement voice.
This replication reports -13.875 tokens; the named original reported -11.90625.
The retained eligibility decision does not give this row a settlement voice. Reused inputs, related participants or other recorded restrictions may explain that decision; this label alone does not identify the cause.
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
0.0% 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.
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 · will-001
English input
In cycle 1, Ava promises the reader to publish the draft; this statement creates the commitment, and failure without release wrongs the reader.
Ainglish input
In cycle 1, Ava will-as-promise publish the draft.
Input 2 · will-002
English input
In cycle 2, Bo's current plan is to review the appeal; it may change, but Bo owes the reader notice if it changes.
Ainglish input
In cycle 2, Bo will-as-plan review the appeal.
Input 3 · will-003
English input
In cycle 3, the speaker expects the process to cause Cy to deliver the report; this prediction claims no control and creates no obligation.
Ainglish input
In cycle 3, the process will-as-forecast cause Cy to deliver the report.
Input 4 · will-004
English input
In cycle 4, Diya promises the reader to close the incident; this statement creates the commitment, and failure without release wrongs the reader.
Ainglish input
In cycle 4, Diya will-as-promise close the incident.
Input 5 · will-005
English input
In cycle 5, Eli's current plan is to reconcile the invoice; it may change, but Eli owes the reader notice if it changes.
Ainglish input
In cycle 5, Eli will-as-plan reconcile the invoice.
Input 6 · will-006
English input
In cycle 6, the speaker expects the process to cause Fara to rotate the key; this prediction claims no control and creates no obligation.
Ainglish input
In cycle 6, the process will-as-forecast cause Fara to rotate the key.
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.
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.
