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?	percentage points, not bare percent — a change to a percentage is stated in points, endpoints attached when known2026-08-12 07:21 UTC	percentage points, not bare percent — a change to a percentage is stated in points, endpoints attached when known2026-08-23 07:21 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?	22.56 percentage pointsReported interval: -14.2857 to 57.3099Retracted by submitter	3.12 percentage pointsReported interval: -15.625 to 22.7053Not yet counting in evidence decisions
Compared with what?	English comparison not recorded as a structured labelReader exposure not recorded as a structured label	English comparison not recorded as a structured labelReader exposure not recorded as a structured label
Independently settled?	Inactive historyThis row remains citable but has no current evidence effect.	Target no longer carries evidenceThe target original was retracted. This replication remains visible, but no longer adds a settlement voice to that target. This does not itself invalidate the replication’s observations.

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 · 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) · Recorded values differ

First result

[
    "qwen25-7b@q4_k_m"
]

Second result

[
    "mistral-small3.2-24b-pp-task-q4_k_m@q4_k_m",
    "gemma3-12b-pp-task-q4_k_m@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 · 22.56 percentage points

First result · 2026-08-12 07:21 UTC

percentage points, not bare percent — a change to a percentage is stated in points, endpoints attached when known

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: 22.56 percentage points
Reported interval: -14.2857 to 57.3099.
This is inactive history. Its reported value is preserved, but it cannot currently support or oppose inclusion.
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: qwen25-7b@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: Inactive history
This row remains citable but has no current evidence effect.

How often did each version lead to the right answer?

English comparison: 46.67%; 46.67%
Ainglish version: 69.23%; 69.23%

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): -14.2857 to 57.3099 percentage points.

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

Item-selection sensitivity warning. At least one reported reduced-item check changed direction or fell outside the full-item interval. Keep this warning with the score: the headline interval alone does not resolve sensitivity to which cases were included.

Real cases: not recorded in this summary · Named readers: 1. 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.

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": 0.46670000000000000373034936274052597582340240478515625,
    "ainglish": 0.69230000000000002646771690706373192369937896728515625,
    "chance": 0.333299999999999985167420391007908619940280914306640625
}

Reader or tokenizer results

[
    {
        "model": "qwen25-7b",
        "value": 22.559999999999998721023075631819665431976318359375,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    }
]

Condition results

Not recorded

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt 43a3d58f-f4b9-491a-8e16-0c115ea69285
Content f9e78cc01f6725961fc0b9b119ae6f5d09f74d2858b92d81f2f1d8a08fa75c5b

Second result: full recordcomprehension accuracy · 3.12 percentage points

Second result · 2026-08-23 07:21 UTC

percentage points, not bare percent — a change to a percentage is stated in points, endpoints attached when known

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: 3.12 percentage points
Reported interval: -15.625 to 22.7053.
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: mistral-small3.2-24b-pp-task-q4_k_m@q4_k_m, gemma3-12b-pp-task-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: Target no longer carries evidence
The target original was retracted. This replication remains visible, but no longer adds a settlement voice to that target. This does not itself invalidate the replication’s observations.

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

f9e78cc01f6725961fc0b9b119ae6f5d09f74d2858b92d81f2f1d8a08fa75c5b

How often did each version lead to the right answer?

English comparison: 12.50%; 12.50%
Ainglish version: 15.62%; 15.62%

Reported interval (method not identified here): -15.625 to 22.7053 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: 32 · 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: 4962794f1223a00dd5603b27c05339f65a621ed8654f005d5a650469659b92ca. 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

{
    "english": 0.125,
    "ainglish": 0.15620000000000000550670620214077644050121307373046875,
    "chance": 0.333299999999999985167420391007908619940280914306640625
}

Reader or tokenizer results

[
    {
        "model": "mistral-small3.2-24b-pp-task-q4_k_m",
        "value": 11.7599999999999997868371792719699442386627197265625,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    },
    {
        "model": "gemma3-12b-pp-task-q4_k_m",
        "value": -3.529999999999999804600747665972448885440826416015625,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    }
]

Condition results

Not recorded

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt 89c29727-8792-4a2c-a867-413b33dad85f
Content d2b5ff04bfb21f22ae74fd1aa25ece5715e782d5e25dd3be2386634146737b94

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.