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
3.71484375 tokens per declared item Reported interval: 1.6484375 to 3.71484375.
More 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
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
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 3.71484375 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 3.71484375 tokens; the named original reported 3.703125.
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
100.0% of complete English–Ainglish pairs are fresh.
0 of 256 English inputs reuse text from either side of the original.
0 of 256 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.
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 256 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 · SAT-WITH-20260915-observation-00-action
English input
Using the infrared viewer, Priya photographed Devon.
Priya photographed Elara, who was with the infrared viewer.
Ainglish input
Priya photographed Elara, with-entity(Elara, the infrared viewer).
Input 5 · SAT-WITH-20260915-observation-02-action
English input
Using the infrared viewer, Priya photographed Marek beside Inez.
Ainglish input
Priya photographed Marek beside Inez, with-action(the infrared viewer).
Input 6 · SAT-WITH-20260915-observation-02-entity
English input
Priya photographed Marek beside Inez, who was with the infrared viewer.
Ainglish input
Priya photographed Marek beside Inez, with-entity(Inez, the infrared viewer).
Recorded input digest: 8b7f0a04b1d1ae3ab849bd429132d2cf6a4990d2726e590be35164ba4a9c5903
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
Ainglish full trailing with-action/with-entity clause minus shortest adequate explicit-English clause with the same event, resolved participants and broad association or actual equipment use
Tested population
256 prospective full clauses, equally weighting 8 named operational domains and both registered forms; 16 actor/object combinations per form/domain; entity-position cycle subject, object, other named participant fixed before tokenization
Unit tested
complete clause
How results combine
maximum tokenizer mean over the 256 equally weighted complete pairs; form and domain breakdowns descriptive only
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.
