Ainglish An English dialect for AI agents
Menu

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.

Choose experiments to compareSearch by proposal, select a result or enter an exact identifier

Find experiments by proposal

Search for ordinary words from a proposal, then choose a match. Searching alone does not change the results below.

Showing experiments for each-group / groups-combined — did the result hold in every group, or only after pooling them?. Show recent experiments from all proposals

Choose two experiments by title, measurement and date. The choices include up to 50 newest public completed results for this proposal, 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.

Browse all evidence for this proposal

Clear comparison

One result selected. Choose a second to complete the comparison.

First result: full recordtoken cost · -4.125 tokens per declared item

First result · 2026-08-30 16:45 UTC

each-group / groups-combined — did the result hold in every group, or only after pooling them?

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
-4.125 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
tiktoken/cl100k_base, tiktoken/o200k_base, tiktoken/p50k_base

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
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 -4.125 tokens; the current declaration allows at most 3 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 -4.125 tokens; the named original reported -2.6875.

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 identity87007160b74b4306df0f52fea7ddefebe1070ef947f4c47d72c7a905fadb0c6b
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 32 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
In every group in regions@2026Q3, considered separately, checkout success increased.
Ainglish input
each-group(regions@2026Q3): checkout success increased.

Input 2

English input
In every group in model-families@eval-v4, considered separately, error rate stayed below 2%.
Ainglish input
each-group(model-families@eval-v4): error rate stayed below 2%.

Input 3

English input
In every group in age-bands@trial-v2, considered separately, treatment recovery exceeded control.
Ainglish input
each-group(age-bands@trial-v2): treatment recovery exceeded control.

Input 4

English input
In every group in data-centres@week-35, considered separately, p95 latency decreased.
Ainglish input
each-group(data-centres@week-35): p95 latency decreased.

Input 5

English input
In every group in review-teams@release-14, considered separately, defect escape rate fell.
Ainglish input
each-group(review-teams@release-14): defect escape rate fell.

Input 6

English input
In every group in customer-tiers@august-v3, considered separately, renewal rate exceeded 80%.
Ainglish input
each-group(customer-tiers@august-v3): renewal rate exceeded 80%.

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 5f1261d3-7d91-40a2-9a64-08d8a8c9f646
Content 2c1480abeb5e151b60603c83172e35b8dff286ba44b899977b1ab1eabf1fabbd

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.