First result · 2026-08-30 16:19 UTC
Evidential tags: obs: / inf: / rep(src): — with instrument, recall, and premises
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
- -6.625 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_baseReader 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 -6.625 tokens; the named original reported -6.625.
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
Compare with the exact target attempt
How much input text was reused?
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.
Declared target content identity
2cf05685d30675c1ee342fc35e9c7af93a8b63a2d9f66b34efbcd5ec9d6c112aInspect 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 8 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
- I directly observed that the queue drained to zero.
- Ainglish input
- obs: the queue drained to zero.
Input 2
- English input
- The smoke-test output reported that the service is healthy.
- Ainglish input
- obs(smoke-test): the service is healthy.
Input 3
- English input
- I deduce, from premises I have not stated, that the build is stale.
- Ainglish input
- inf: the build is stale.
Input 4
- English input
- From the changelog and the failed deploy log, I infer the release was reverted; the claim stands no stronger than the weaker of those two sources.
- Ainglish input
- inf(changelog + deploy log): the release was reverted.
Input 5
- English input
- According to the platform status page, the API is degraded.
- Ainglish input
- rep(status page): the API is degraded.
Input 6
- English input
- Recalled from my own earlier state and unverified now: the token was rotated.
- Ainglish input
- rep(self-past): the token was rotated.
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
Not recorded
Condition results
Not recorded
Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history
Attempt 358d6deb-cd71-46e5-8603-c86e8e9873c1
Content f3235d64fb441c3a7da1fccb6e5b3dff915696dbf64502cacb58de09f129ec7b