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.

Change the selected experimentsSearch by proposal, select a result or enter an exact identifier

Find experiments by proposal

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

Compare the essentials

Read each question across both results. A matching description is not proof that the studies are scientifically comparable.

Question	First result	Second result
Which proposal?	overslip — the unintentional-miss sense splits out of 'oversight', which keeps supervision only2026-08-15 12:34 UTC	overslip — the unintentional-miss sense splits out of 'oversight', which keeps supervision only2026-09-02 04:50 UTC
What was measured?	comprehension accuracyHow does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?	comprehension accuracyHow does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?
What was the result?	-8.33 percentage pointsReported interval: -23.2816 to 7.0588Not yet counting in evidence decisions	0 percentage pointsReported interval: -15.3846 to 15Counts in current evidence decisions
Compared with what?	English comparison not recorded as a structured labelReader exposure not recorded as a structured label	Other declared comparison; inspect the specificationReader exposure not recorded as a structured label
Independently settled?	DisputedEligible replications disagree and this original does not hold a settlement majority.	Disagrees with the named originalThis eligible row adds one disagreement. An adverse or null direction is a valid result and remains visible.

Inspect first result Inspect second result

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

comprehension_accuracy_delta

Second result

comprehension_accuracy_delta

English comparison declarations · Only recorded on one side

First result

Not recorded in this structured field

Second result

[
    "meaning-explicit-careful-english-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

First result

[
    "gemma3-12b-q4_k_m@q4_k_m",
    "qwen2.5-7b-q4_k_m@q4_k_m"
]

Second result

[
    "falcon3-10b-qualification-v7-c8647169c2b9@q4_k_m",
    "olmo2-13b-qualification-v7-cd836509a1a0@q4_k_m"
]

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 recordcomprehension accuracy · -8.33 percentage points

First result · 2026-08-15 12:34 UTC

overslip — the unintentional-miss sense splits out of 'oversight', which keeps supervision only

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

What was measured: comprehension accuracy · comprehension_accuracy_delta
How does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?
Reported result: -8.33 percentage points
Reported interval: -23.2816 to 7.0588.
The value is neutral or does not resolve the registered direction.
English comparison: English comparison not recorded as a structured label
Declared by the submitter; not a certification of equivalent information.
Reader exposure: Reader exposure not recorded as a structured label
Named instruments: gemma3-12b-q4_k_m@q4_k_m, qwen2.5-7b-q4_k_m@q4_k_m
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: Disputed
Eligible replications disagree and this original does not hold a settlement majority.

How often did each version lead to the right answer?

English comparison: 79.17%; 79.17%
Ainglish version: 70.83%; 70.83%

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): -23.2816 to 7.0588 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: 48 · Named readers: 2. These are different units; multiple answers to one case are not new cases.

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.

Open the declared external input artifact. This is an unverified external link, not a hosted or inspected copy.

Declared input digest: 95efd2fc504fd4225a0f05f9ca6bdb3593ed4f05f3247afe961155546f5c5419. 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.

Absolute arm results

{
    "english": 0.79169999999999995932142837773426435887813568115234375,
    "ainglish": 0.70830000000000004067857162226573564112186431884765625,
    "chance": 0.25
}

Reader or tokenizer results

[
    {
        "model": "gemma3-12b-q4_k_m",
        "value": -4.1699999999999999289457264239899814128875732421875,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    },
    {
        "model": "qwen2.5-7b-q4_k_m",
        "value": -12.5,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    }
]

Condition results

Not recorded

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt 2b1ef318-c80a-4a1b-a30a-bd3fc7e686c7
Content da58096cd210fb411391f3d2bfbccb1ed9c50444bcc21afb3e1e38375824a0ef

Second result: full recordcomprehension accuracy · 0 percentage points

Second result · 2026-09-02 04:50 UTC

overslip — the unintentional-miss sense splits out of 'oversight', which keeps supervision only

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

comprehension accuracy · comprehension_accuracy_delta
How does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?

Reported result

0 percentage points
Reported interval: -15.3846 to 15.

The value is neutral or does not resolve the registered direction.

English comparison

Other declared comparison; inspect the specification

Declared by the submitter; not a certification of equivalent information.

The English arm says supervision or unintentional omission explicitly; the Ainglish arm reserves oversight for supervision and uses overslip for the miss.

Reader exposure

Reader exposure not recorded as a structured label

Named instruments

falcon3-10b-qualification-v7-c8647169c2b9@q4_k_m, olmo2-13b-qualification-v7-cd836509a1a0@q4_k_m

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

Disagrees with the named original

This eligible row adds one disagreement. An adverse or null direction is a valid result and remains visible.

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?

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.

Declared target content identity

da58096cd210fb411391f3d2bfbccb1ed9c50444bcc21afb3e1e38375824a0ef

How often did each version lead to the right answer?

English comparison: 93.75%; 93.75%
Ainglish version: 93.75%; 93.75%

Reported item-bootstrap interval: -15.3846 to 15 percentage points.

This interval concerns the difference, not separate uncertainty bounds for either accuracy. It does not measure uncertainty across humans or future models.

The reported accuracy is near a measurement boundary; read the resolution diagnostics before claiming a small effect.

Real cases: 16 · Named readers: 2. These are different units; multiple answers to one case are not new cases.

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 16 readable, inline study items, in stored order—not a selection of successes. 4 control items are kept separate.

Each result has its own input pages. Positions across the two studies do not imply matched cases.