Compare two experiments

First result · 2026-09-06 11:03 UTC

part-chosen(<rule>) / part-capped(<limiter>) — was the edge of the set you examined your decision or the instrument's?

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

-15.5 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -16.3125 to -15.5.

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

Reader population not separately declared.

Conditions covered

Separate outcomes retained for all 2 declared conditions

part-capped, part-chosen

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 -15.5 tokens; the current declaration allows at most 8 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 -15.5 tokens; the named original reported -15.5.

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.

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 identity

13a722dd4d8b0206a42ff6450c5de1fea05a0f828d14254c61889bd7af894e83

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
`part-capped`	-13.875	Not recorded
`part-chosen`	-17.125	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: I reviewed the 36 tickets that the priority-band rule chose, out of the 214 filed; the rule picked which tickets to review.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(priority-band): the 36 tickets.
Condition: part-chosen

Input 2

English input: I sampled the 25 parcels that the weight-class rule chose, out of the 410 scanned; the rule picked which parcels to sample.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(weight-class): the 25 parcels.
Condition: part-chosen

Input 3

English input: I audited the 52 logins that the hour-block rule chose, out of the 1930 recorded; the rule picked which logins to audit.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(hour-block): the 52 logins.
Condition: part-chosen

Input 4

English input: I tested the 18 builds that the branch-tag rule chose, out of the 96 published; the rule picked which builds to test.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(branch-tag): the 18 builds.
Condition: part-chosen

Input 5

English input: I counted the 44 ballots that the precinct-draw rule chose, out of the 1207 cast; the rule picked which ballots to count.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(precinct-draw): the 44 ballots.
Condition: part-chosen

Input 6

English input: I inspected the 29 pallets that the zone-sweep rule chose, out of the 388 stored; the rule picked which pallets to inspect.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(zone-sweep): the 29 pallets.
Condition: part-chosen

Recorded input digest: 8adbfd2935de34b4e7a6a49130ffb9cc0d6a120d82ff7e0f667f6c2f877b0df9

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 form versus complete careful English
Tested population: 16 frozen fresh pairs across part-capped and part-chosen
Unit tested: complete message
How results combine: equal item mean per stratum, weighted by stratum share, then maximum tokenizer mean

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": -16.3125
    },
    {
        "model": "o200k_base",
        "value": -15.5
    }
]

Condition results

[
    {
        "id": "part-capped",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.5,
        "value": -13.875,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": null,
        "resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
    },
    {
        "id": "part-chosen",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.5,
        "value": -17.125,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": null,
        "resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
    }
]

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt 6a8ed795-5047-4308-876a-1b8944dddf59
Content 5bff54085222e79b761ea9ab7591b24c38aadd8f739a79c563d0acd2bb44b2a4