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
comprehension_accuracy_delta
Second result
comprehension_accuracy_delta
English comparison declarations · Same recorded value
First result
[
"bare-they-v1"
]
Second result
[
"bare-they-v1"
]
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) · Recorded values differ
Retracted by submitter. This is inactive history. Its reported value is preserved, but it cannot currently support or oppose inclusion.
What was measured
comprehension accuracy · comprehension_accuracy_delta How does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?
Historical reported result
46.96 percentage points Reported interval: 41.025 to 52.975.
This is inactive history. Its reported value is preserved, but it cannot currently support or oppose inclusion.
English comparison
Other declared comparison; inspect the specification
Declared by the submitter; not a certification of equivalent information.
bare `they` in a context carrying one singular and one plural antecedent candidate, both semantically live; the primary comparator named in the proposal's predicted_measurement. The careful-English surface is carried per item as `careful` for the declared secondary comparison, not run here.
Reader exposure
Reader exposure not recorded as a structured label
Separate outcomes retained for all 2 declared conditions
one, many
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 row remains citable but has no current evidence effect.
How often did each version lead to the right answer?
English comparison
44.04%
44.04%
Ainglish version
91.00%
91.00%
Reported real-item accuracy, not the separate calibration score. Both bars use the same 0–100% scale. The difference is measured in percentage points, not percent improvement. Any declared stratum weights are already applied.
Reported interval (method not identified here): 41.025 to 52.975 percentage points.
This interval concerns the difference, not separate uncertainty bounds for either accuracy. It does not measure uncertainty across humans or future models.
Real cases: 192 · Named readers: 3. These are different units; multiple answers to one case are not new cases.
Does the overall result hide differences between conditions?
Every stored condition, without new pooling. Differences and intervals use percentage points. Condition names come from the frozen experiment.
Condition
Reported difference
Reported interval
English accuracy
Ainglish accuracy
one
73.24
Not recorded
18.30%
91.54%
many
20.68
Not recorded
69.77%
90.45%
A missing condition interval is not zero uncertainty. An overall interval cannot substitute for agreement in every load-bearing condition.
Inspect externally stored 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.
The input material is linked externally. The number of study items and controls in that file has not been checked by this website. “External file” does not mean zero inputs.
Declared input digest: 8417e8bf936eb47ebf3c6d2869aa50da32bdc4ad80b6c3f9dde309157a926160. A recorded digest alone does not establish that the linked file matches it.
The website does not fetch the file. Verify the declared digest recipe before relying on it: SDK item digests use canonical JSON of the item array, not the raw pretty-printed file bytes.
No readable study input pairs are stored inline in this receipt. This does not mean the experiment used none.
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.
Every declared condition must agree. Overlapping overall intervals alone do not confirm this original.
How much input text was reused?
Complete-pair freshness is not available for this receipt.
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.
How often did each version lead to the right answer?
English comparison
41.67%
41.67%
Ainglish version
95.44%
95.44%
Reported real-item accuracy, not the separate calibration score. Both bars use the same 0–100% scale. The difference is measured in percentage points, not percent improvement. Any declared stratum weights are already applied.
Reported interval (method not identified here): 47.155 to 60.955 percentage points.
This interval concerns the difference, not separate uncertainty bounds for either accuracy. It does not measure uncertainty across humans or future models.
Real cases: 192 · Named readers: 1. These are different units; multiple answers to one case are not new cases.
Does the overall result hide differences between conditions?
Every stored condition, without new pooling. Differences and intervals use percentage points. Condition names come from the frozen experiment.
Condition
Reported difference
Reported interval
English accuracy
Ainglish accuracy
one
98.28
Not recorded
0.00%
98.28%
many
9.26
Not recorded
83.33%
92.59%
A missing condition interval is not zero uncertainty. An overall interval cannot substitute for agreement in every load-bearing condition.
Inspect externally stored 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.
The input material is linked externally. The number of study items and controls in that file has not been checked by this website. “External file” does not mean zero inputs.
Declared input digest: 8417e8bf936eb47ebf3c6d2869aa50da32bdc4ad80b6c3f9dde309157a926160. A recorded digest alone does not establish that the linked file matches it.
The website does not fetch the file. Verify the declared digest recipe before relying on it: SDK item digests use canonical JSON of the item array, not the raw pretty-printed file bytes.
No readable study input pairs are stored inline in this receipt. This does not mean the experiment used none.
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.