First result · 2026-09-09 21:28 UTC
replied-no / no-reply-from — did they say no, or did no answer arrive?
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
- 6.140625 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: 1.765625 to 6.140625.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_baseReader population not separately declared.
- Conditions covered
- Separate outcomes retained for all 2 declared conditions
replied-no,no-reply-fromAn 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
- Disagrees with the named original
This eligible row adds one disagreement. An adverse or null direction is a valid result and remains visible.
- Is this result within the cost allowance?
- This headline is outside the allowance.
The reported difference is 6.140625 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?
- Disagrees with the named original.
This replication reports 6.140625 tokens; the named original reported 6.875.
This eligible row adds one disagreement. An adverse or null direction is a valid result and remains visible.
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
69debfe93b28a7062486f4b8cfc7311c3e21fba9b99217347fa300ad24493e30Does the overall result hide differences between conditions?
| Condition | Reported difference | Reported interval |
|---|---|---|
replied-no | 2.15625 | Not recorded |
no-reply-from | 10.125 | 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 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
- English input
- The pending request is expense-claims-192-revision-1. It is unknown whether Priya saw expense-claims-192-revision-1. The workflow rule for silence is to proceed. Priya replied no to expense-claims-192-revision-1.
- Ainglish input
- The pending request is expense-claims-192-revision-1. It is unknown whether Priya saw expense-claims-192-revision-1. The workflow rule for silence is to proceed. Priya replied-no(to=expense-claims-192-revision-1).
- Condition
- replied-no
Input 2
- English input
- Request expense-claims-264-revision-3 is what this note tracks. A read receipt confirms Priya received expense-claims-264-revision-3. The workflow rule for silence is to hold. Priya replied no to expense-claims-264-revision-3.
- Ainglish input
- Request expense-claims-264-revision-3 is what this note tracks. A read receipt confirms Priya received expense-claims-264-revision-3. The workflow rule for silence is to hold. Priya replied-no(to=expense-claims-264-revision-3).
- Condition
- replied-no
Input 3
- English input
- Request expense-claims-227-revision-2 is what this note tracks. Whether Priya ever received expense-claims-227-revision-2 is not recorded. The workflow rule for silence is to hold. A negative reply to expense-claims-227-revision-2 came from Priya.
- Ainglish input
- Request expense-claims-227-revision-2 is what this note tracks. Whether Priya ever received expense-claims-227-revision-2 is not recorded. The workflow rule for silence is to hold. Priya replied-no(to=expense-claims-227-revision-2).
- Condition
- replied-no
Input 4
- English input
- This note concerns expense-claims-113-revision-2. The system logged expense-claims-113-revision-2 as delivered to Priya. Under the workflow, silence leaves the next step open. A negative reply to expense-claims-113-revision-2 came from Priya.
- Ainglish input
- This note concerns expense-claims-113-revision-2. The system logged expense-claims-113-revision-2 as delivered to Priya. Under the workflow, silence leaves the next step open. Priya replied-no(to=expense-claims-113-revision-2).
- Condition
- replied-no
Input 5
- English input
- This note concerns expense-claims-792-revision-3. No signal shows that Priya opened expense-claims-792-revision-3. Under the workflow, silence leaves the next step open. Priya answered expense-claims-792-revision-3 in the negative.
- Ainglish input
- This note concerns expense-claims-792-revision-3. No signal shows that Priya opened expense-claims-792-revision-3. Under the workflow, silence leaves the next step open. Priya replied-no(to=expense-claims-792-revision-3).
- Condition
- replied-no
Input 6
- English input
- The request under review is expense-claims-102-revision-1. Delivery of expense-claims-102-revision-1 to Priya was acknowledged. The workflow treats silence as undecided. Priya answered expense-claims-102-revision-1 in the negative.
- Ainglish input
- The request under review is expense-claims-102-revision-1. Delivery of expense-claims-102-revision-1 to Priya was acknowledged. The workflow treats silence as undecided. Priya replied-no(to=expense-claims-102-revision-1).
- Condition
- replied-no
Recorded input digest: 7faa5067f970c9463329667b9b1950cb0b42c8562a8d1bfe7c1bd563e4d1aab9
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 exact-request reply or scoped observation claim versus concise meaning-complete careful English, with identical surrounding facts
- Tested population
- 256 cells: 16 authored domains, 8 response situations and 2 delivery states; equal form weights; domain and identifier variants are not independent grammatical frames
- Unit tested
- complete vignette and scoped claim
- How results combine
- equal cell means then maximum tokenizer mean; preserve separate reply and no-observed-reply 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": 1.765625
},
{
"model": "o200k_base",
"value": 2.515625
},
{
"model": "p50k_base",
"value": 6.140625
}
]
Condition results
[
{
"id": "replied-no",
"weight": 1,
"share": 0.5,
"value": 2.15625,
"value_lo": null,
"value_hi": null,
"arms": null,
"resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
},
{
"id": "no-reply-from",
"weight": 1,
"share": 0.5,
"value": 10.125,
"value_lo": null,
"value_hi": null,
"arms": null,
"resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
}
]
Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history
Attempt 7e5e5312-d863-4a3d-9027-b61a024fee2f
Content 4aa698ed8cda46e5249865c7c97c355aa310fd002345c0f8b72fd7027628167d