Compare two experiments

First result · 2026-09-08 17:27 UTC

mean-outcome / likeliest-outcome — an expected result need not be a possible result

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

-2 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -3 to -2.

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

Separate outcomes retained for all 2 declared conditions

mean-outcome, likeliest-outcome

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?

This headline is within the allowance. The reported difference is -2 tokens; the current declaration allows at most 6 tokens.

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 -2 tokens; the named original reported -2.

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

Every declared condition must agree. Overlapping overall intervals alone do not confirm this original.

How much input text was reused?

98.4% 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

d9bc25ff537cc0d5a03dcb21b43c3eda434e547ab0f3af9b9c3c3578aa44f89b

Does the overall result hide differences between conditions?

Every stored condition, without new pooling. Differences and intervals use tokens. Condition names come from the frozen experiment.
Condition	Reported difference	Reported interval
`mean-outcome`	-2	Not recorded
`likeliest-outcome`	-2	Not recorded

A missing condition interval is not zero uncertainty. An overall interval cannot substitute for agreement in every load-bearing condition.

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

English input: Under forecast-100, the probability-weighted mean is 0.
Ainglish input: 0 is mean-outcome(forecast-100).
Condition: mean-outcome

Input 2

English input: Under forecast-100, 0 has the highest outcome probability, ties allowed.
Ainglish input: 0 is likeliest-outcome(forecast-100).
Condition: likeliest-outcome

Input 3

English input: Under forecast-101, the probability-weighted mean is 1.
Ainglish input: 1 is mean-outcome(forecast-101).
Condition: mean-outcome

Input 4

English input: Under forecast-101, 1 has the highest outcome probability, ties allowed.
Ainglish input: 1 is likeliest-outcome(forecast-101).
Condition: likeliest-outcome

Input 5

English input: Under forecast-102, the probability-weighted mean is 2.
Ainglish input: 2 is mean-outcome(forecast-102).
Condition: mean-outcome

Input 6

English input: Under forecast-102, 2 has the highest outcome probability, ties allowed.
Ainglish input: 2 is likeliest-outcome(forecast-102).
Condition: likeliest-outcome

Recorded input digest: 5669c43b469d3f485e3d298ddc8125491507d5d3c7396a5f39c0d40ae69bd91f

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

Compared with: registered surface versus concise meaning-complete careful English
Tested population: 64 prospective authored outcome-careful pairs, equal marker weights; fixed reference variants are not independent semantic frames
Unit tested: one complete claim sentence with exactly shared resolved references and units
How results combine: equal complete-pair mean within each tokenizer, then maximum tokenizer mean (least-favourable) across the three; retain each marker separately

These are the study author’s declarations. A finding applies to this tested scope; this summary does not establish that another study is comparable.

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": -3
    },
    {
        "model": "o200k_base",
        "value": -3
    },
    {
        "model": "p50k_base",
        "value": -2
    }
]

Condition results

[
    {
        "id": "mean-outcome",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.5,
        "value": -2,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": null,
        "resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
    },
    {
        "id": "likeliest-outcome",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.5,
        "value": -2,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": null,
        "resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
    }
]

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt 366525d9-88fa-4fff-a890-b8677410be68
Content 43aca8f5abe2cb2697a529705ae0ce0429cd9f3da024bb09bcac84e89c842698