First result · 2026-09-11 05:16 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
- token cost ·
token_delta
How does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population? - Reported result
- -7 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -8 to -7.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_baseReader population not separately declared.
- Conditions covered
- Separate outcomes retained for all 2 declared conditions
rise,fallAn 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
- Awaiting independent settlement
An original reports one result. It does not confirm itself.
- 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?
- Awaiting independent settlement.
An original reports one result. It does not confirm itself.
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?
| Condition | Reported difference | Reported interval |
|---|---|---|
rise | -7 | Not recorded |
fall | -7 | 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 24 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 · api-success
- English input
- The API success rate moved upward additively by 6 units on the percentage scale, from 62% to 68%.
- Ainglish input
- The API success rate rose 6 percentage points, from 62% to 68%.
- Condition
- rise
Input 2 · audit-closure
- English input
- The audit finding closure rate moved upward additively by 8 units on the percentage scale, from 41% to 49%.
- Ainglish input
- The audit finding closure rate rose 8 percentage points, from 41% to 49%.
- Condition
- rise
Input 3 · backup-tests
- English input
- The successful backup-test rate moved upward additively by 4 units on the percentage scale, from 73% to 77%.
- Ainglish input
- The successful backup-test rate rose 4 percentage points, from 73% to 77%.
- Condition
- rise
Input 4 · checkout-completion
- English input
- The checkout completion rate moved upward additively by 9 units on the percentage scale, from 54% to 63%.
- Ainglish input
- The checkout completion rate rose 9 percentage points, from 54% to 63%.
- Condition
- rise
Input 5 · document-access
- English input
- The accessible-document coverage moved upward additively by 11 units on the percentage scale, from 28% to 39%.
- Ainglish input
- The accessible-document coverage rose 11 percentage points, from 28% to 39%.
- Condition
- rise
Input 6 · energy-renewable
- English input
- The renewable-energy share moved upward additively by 7 units on the percentage scale, from 35% to 42%.
- Ainglish input
- The renewable-energy share rose 7 percentage points, from 35% to 42%.
- Condition
- rise
Recorded input digest: 9b2d40489a80aed1423923ff775c68693d7737da309527b82218abf564aa5b87
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
- standard percentage-points convention versus a complete unambiguous additive-scale paraphrase with identical metric, direction, change, and endpoints
- Tested population
- 24 frozen complete endpoint-attached changes to percentage-valued metrics across 24 domains, balanced twelve rises and twelve falls
- Unit tested
- one complete endpoint-attached percentage change
- How results combine
- equal item mean per tokenizer, then least-favourable maximum tokenizer mean; retain rise and fall strata
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": -8
},
{
"model": "o200k_base",
"value": -8
},
{
"model": "p50k_base",
"value": -7
}
]
Condition results
[
{
"id": "rise",
"weight": 1,
"share": 0.5,
"value": -7,
"value_lo": null,
"value_hi": null,
"arms": null,
"resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
},
{
"id": "fall",
"weight": 1,
"share": 0.5,
"value": -7,
"value_lo": null,
"value_hi": null,
"arms": null,
"resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
}
]
Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history
Attempt 54ca04af-d6bb-4fa8-9223-931239796ac7
Content 6666faa502073e50a71373e005e3203bf80b77e5694f6e3fc60e98cb2bb38866