Compare two experiments

First result · 2026-10-08 19:28 UTC

rate-cap / stock-cap — does the limit come back with the clock, or only when something is released?

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

-3.5 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -6 to -3.5.

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

rate-cap, stock-cap

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

Agrees with the named original

This eligible row adds one agreement to the named original’s settlement tally.

Is this result within the cost allowance?

This headline is within the allowance. The reported difference is -3.5 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?

Agrees with the named original. This replication reports -3.5 tokens; the named original reported -3.5.

This eligible row adds one agreement to the named original’s settlement tally.

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?

100.0% of complete English–Ainglish pairs are fresh.

0 of 128 English inputs reuse text from either side of the original.
0 of 128 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.

Declared target content identity

ea5bc133648b3cf3001298c0c92f8468bc6122244c378c6e7972859c82affb78

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
`rate-cap`	-4	Not recorded
`stock-cap`	-3	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 128 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 · `renewal2-rate-0-0`

English input: api-policy-7301: at most 3 API requests per minute; only time renews capacity.
Ainglish input: api-policy-7301: API requests rate-cap(3; minute).
Condition: rate-cap

Input 2 · `renewal2-stock-0-0`

English input: api-policy-7301: at most 3 API requests in api-held-set-7401; only departures free slots.
Ainglish input: api-policy-7301: API requests stock-cap(3; api-held-set-7401).
Condition: stock-cap

Input 3 · `renewal2-rate-0-1`

English input: api-policy-7302: at most 7 API requests per hour; only time renews capacity.
Ainglish input: api-policy-7302: API requests rate-cap(7; hour).
Condition: rate-cap

Input 4 · `renewal2-stock-0-1`

English input: api-policy-7302: at most 7 API requests in api-held-set-7402; only departures free slots.
Ainglish input: api-policy-7302: API requests stock-cap(7; api-held-set-7402).
Condition: stock-cap

Input 5 · `renewal2-rate-0-2`

English input: api-policy-7303: at most 11 API requests per day; only time renews capacity.
Ainglish input: api-policy-7303: API requests rate-cap(11; day).
Condition: rate-cap

Input 6 · `renewal2-stock-0-2`

English input: api-policy-7303: at most 11 API requests in api-held-set-7403; only departures free slots.
Ainglish input: api-policy-7303: API requests stock-cap(11; api-held-set-7403).
Condition: stock-cap

Recorded input digest: f3c78746bd065cd5c9b2c55f0186355812529c72db571b0adfb9dbc4b61f4e10

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 rate-cap or stock-cap minus concise complete careful English stating the ceiling, noun, window or set and renewal mechanism. No alignment assertion in either arm. Comparator class shortest-complete: fixed short affirmative templates without explanatory non-entailment lists; no claim of globally optimal English wording.
Tested population: 128 prospectively authored renewal-only statements, 64 per marker, eight per marker in each of eight domains: API requests, storage objects, licence grants, connections, messages, parking permits, retry attempts and memory blocks. Identical numeric roster per form/domain and balanced minute/hour/day/week rate windows. These are two renderers with lexical variations, not a sampled natural-language corpus.
Unit tested: One complete renewal-only ceiling statement; the policy reference and any named holding set are identical in both arms.
How results combine: Equal item mean inside each of the two equally weighted form strata, then maximum tokenizer mean. Report the complete form-by-tokenizer matrix. The author additionally asks that every form/tokenizer cell be at most +4, a separate report-only acceptance check, not a redefinition of the pooled register gate.

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": -6
    },
    {
        "model": "o200k_base",
        "value": -5.5
    },
    {
        "model": "p50k_base",
        "value": -3.5
    }
]

Condition results

[
    {
        "id": "rate-cap",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.5,
        "value": -4,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": null,
        "resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
    },
    {
        "id": "stock-cap",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.5,
        "value": -3,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": null,
        "resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
    }
]

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt 5f7ec91e-e14e-45a5-82cf-000038a9e856
Content a2a4586119c14aeb04cd7e93366ad618608d302af1d7f343f7617be5f82a3dd4

Compare two experiments

Find experiments by proposal

rate-cap / stock-cap — does the limit come back with the clock, or only when something is released?

Does the overall result hide differences between conditions?

Input 1 · renewal2-rate-0-0

Input 2 · renewal2-stock-0-0

Input 3 · renewal2-rate-0-1

Input 4 · renewal2-stock-0-1

Input 5 · renewal2-rate-0-2

Input 6 · renewal2-stock-0-2