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
token_delta
Second result
token_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 · Same recorded value
First result
sixteen complete statements, eight per form (assignment / default), over deployment configuration, environment variables, service baselines, feature flags, telemetry and queue settings; power-of-two sample
Second result
sixteen complete statements, eight per form (assignment / default), over deployment configuration, environment variables, service baselines, feature flags, telemetry and queue settings; power-of-two sample
Unit tested · Same recorded value
First result
one complete configuration-resolution statement: either the marked form verbatim from the proposal's declared form, or the proposal's declared honest English disclosure for the same (K, V, A/R) substitution
Second result
one complete configuration-resolution statement: either the marked form verbatim from the proposal's declared form, or the proposal's declared honest English disclosure for the same (K, V, A/R) substitution
Named instruments (including order) · Same recorded value
First result
[
"cl100k_base",
"o200k_base",
"p50k_base"
]
Second result
[
"cl100k_base",
"o200k_base",
"p50k_base"
]
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 · Same recorded value
First result
{
"reducer": "least_favourable",
"rule": "maximum tokenizer mean across cl100k_base, o200k_base, p50k_base (least-favourable tokenizer)"
}
Second result
{
"reducer": "least_favourable",
"rule": "maximum tokenizer mean across cl100k_base, o200k_base, p50k_base (least-favourable tokenizer)"
}
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) · Same recorded value
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
-0.125 tokens per declared item Reported interval: -3.4375 to -0.125.
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
assignment, default
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.
Is this result within the cost allowance?
This headline is within the allowance.
The reported difference is -0.125 tokens; the current declaration allows at most 4 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?
Disputed.
Eligible replications disagree and this original does not hold a settlement majority.
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.
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
assignment
2.25
Not recorded
default
-2.5
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 16 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
scheduler-retry.max_attempts uses 7 because the explicit assignment rollout-88#retry.max_attempts supplied that value.
gateway-v12.timeout_ms uses 4500 because the explicit assignment GATEWAY_TIMEOUT_MS in rm-441 supplied that value.
Ainglish input
gateway-v12.timeout_ms resolved-by-assignment(4500, source=GATEWAY_TIMEOUT_MS in rm-441)
Condition
assignment
Input 3
English input
telemetry.batch_size uses 512 because the explicit assignment batch_size in streamer.conf supplied that value.
Ainglish input
telemetry.batch_size resolved-by-assignment(512, source=batch_size in streamer.conf)
Condition
assignment
Input 4
English input
db-replica-v9.pool_size uses 24 because the explicit assignment pool_size in deploy-9 supplied that value.
Ainglish input
db-replica-v9.pool_size resolved-by-assignment(24, source=pool_size in deploy-9)
Condition
assignment
Input 5
English input
cache-ttl.seconds uses 900 because the explicit assignment cache-ttl in profile warm-2 supplied that value.
Ainglish input
cache-ttl.seconds resolved-by-assignment(900, source=cache-ttl in profile warm-2)
Condition
assignment
Input 6
English input
queue.visibility_timeout uses 120 because the explicit assignment visibility_timeout by infra supplied that value.
Ainglish input
queue.visibility_timeout resolved-by-assignment(120, source=visibility_timeout by infra)
Condition
assignment
Recorded input digest: 712fcd80978a1cc7685d44d8a608c19bf6f4de6573bf79056cd35c907574538f
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
marked form minus the proposal's declared honest English disclosure, with opaque reference strings preserved verbatim on both sides
Tested population
sixteen complete statements, eight per form (assignment / default), over deployment configuration, environment variables, service baselines, feature flags, telemetry and queue settings; power-of-two sample
Unit tested
one complete configuration-resolution statement: either the marked form verbatim from the proposal's declared form, or the proposal's declared honest English disclosure for the same (K, V, A/R) substitution
How results combine
maximum tokenizer mean across cl100k_base, o200k_base, p50k_base (least-favourable tokenizer)
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.
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
token cost · token_delta How does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population?
Reported result
-0.3125 tokens per declared item Reported interval: -3.5 to -0.3125.
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
assignment, default
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.
Is this result within the cost allowance?
This headline is within the allowance.
The reported difference is -0.3125 tokens; the current declaration allows at most 4 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?
Disagrees with the named original.
This replication reports -0.3125 tokens; the named original reported -0.125.
This eligible row adds one disagreement. An adverse or null direction is a valid result and remains visible.
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
Every declared condition must agree. Overlapping overall intervals alone do not confirm this original.
How much input text was reused?
100.0% of complete English–Ainglish pairs are fresh.
0 of 16 English inputs reuse text from either side of the original.
0 of 16 Ainglish inputs reuse text from either side of the original.
Declared item-bank digests: different. This compares bank identity, not shared sentences; different bank digests can still contain identical pairs.
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.
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
assignment
2.25
Not recorded
default
-2.875
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 16 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
ingest-v3.shard_count uses 12 because the explicit assignment shard_count in rollout-31 supplied that value.
Ainglish input
ingest-v3.shard_count resolved-by-assignment(12, source=shard_count in rollout-31)
Condition
assignment
Input 2
English input
api-gateway.rate_limit_rps uses 850 because the explicit assignment RATE_LIMIT_RPS in env-prod-7 supplied that value.
Ainglish input
api-gateway.rate_limit_rps resolved-by-assignment(850, source=RATE_LIMIT_RPS in env-prod-7)
Condition
assignment
Input 3
English input
search-index.refresh_secs uses 30 because the explicit assignment refresh_secs in indexer.yaml supplied that value.
Ainglish input
search-index.refresh_secs resolved-by-assignment(30, source=refresh_secs in indexer.yaml)
Condition
assignment
Input 4
English input
billing.retry_window uses 72 because the explicit assignment retry_window by payments supplied that value.
Ainglish input
billing.retry_window resolved-by-assignment(72, source=retry_window by payments)
Condition
assignment
Input 5
English input
notifier.batch_size uses 256 because the explicit assignment batch_size in digest-12 supplied that value.
Ainglish input
notifier.batch_size resolved-by-assignment(256, source=batch_size in digest-12)
Condition
assignment
Input 6
English input
worker-v5.max_jobs uses 9 because the explicit assignment MAX_JOBS in build 512 supplied that value.
Ainglish input
worker-v5.max_jobs resolved-by-assignment(9, source=MAX_JOBS in build 512)
Condition
assignment
Recorded input digest: 6b89642d5a429a9a8dcd7e42c2bfb7a126958c3adf985ab27dfa0a093637b897
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
marked form minus the proposal's declared honest English disclosure, with opaque reference strings preserved verbatim on both sides
Tested population
sixteen complete statements, eight per form (assignment / default), over deployment configuration, environment variables, service baselines, feature flags, telemetry and queue settings; power-of-two sample
Unit tested
one complete configuration-resolution statement: either the marked form verbatim from the proposal's declared form, or the proposal's declared honest English disclosure for the same (K, V, A/R) substitution
How results combine
maximum tokenizer mean across cl100k_base, o200k_base, p50k_base (least-favourable tokenizer)
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.
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.
