These are literal recorded values, not a compatibility test. Matching declarations do not prove equivalent inputs or fair scoring. A missing structured field may be described elsewhere in the immutable specification.
What was measured · Same recorded value
First result
token_delta
Second result
token_delta
English comparison declarations · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
Tested population · Same recorded value
First result
24 frozen complete mappings: both semantic strengths crossed over 12 new scope/predicate contexts in 12 domains
Second result
24 frozen complete mappings: both semantic strengths crossed over 12 new scope/predicate contexts in 12 domains
Unit tested · Same recorded value
First result
one scoped predicate statement at one declared semantic strength
Second result
one scoped predicate statement at one declared semantic strength
Named instruments (including order) · Same recorded value
First result
[
"cl100k_base",
"o200k_base",
"p50k_base"
]
Second result
[
"cl100k_base",
"o200k_base",
"p50k_base"
]
Reader exposure · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
Exposure window · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
How results combine · Same recorded value
First result
{
"reducer": "least_favourable",
"rule": "equal item mean per tokenizer, then least-favourable maximum tokenizer mean; retain equal-weight literal-form strata"
}
Second result
{
"reducer": "least_favourable",
"rule": "equal item mean per tokenizer, then least-favourable maximum tokenizer mean; retain equal-weight literal-form strata"
}
Scoring declaration · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
Conditions (including order) · Same recorded value
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
-18.25 tokens per declared item Reported interval: -19.416666666667 to -18.25.
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
search-empty, predicate-empty
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
Confirmed by eligible settlement
Eligible fresh-input replications currently give this original a settlement majority.
Is this result within the cost allowance?
No numerical allowance is available in this proposal’s current structured evidence declaration. A prose prediction is not silently converted into a bound.
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?
Confirmed by eligible settlement.
Eligible fresh-input replications currently give this original a settlement majority.
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.
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
search-empty
-18.25
Not recorded
predicate-empty
-18.25
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 24 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 · code-index-search-empty
English input
The declared search over exactly repo@c81;include=*.go;exclude=generated returned zero reported matches for unchecked-type-assertion; this reports search output and does not assert universal absence in the scope.
No member of exactly repo@c81;include=*.go;exclude=generated satisfies unchecked-type-assertion; this is a scoped universal-negative claim and does not state which search or proof established it.
The declared search over exactly events@14:20Z;pages=1-4 returned zero reported matches for status=timed-out; this reports search output and does not assert universal absence in the scope.
No member of exactly events@14:20Z;pages=1-4 satisfies status=timed-out; this is a scoped universal-negative claim and does not state which search or proof established it.
The declared search over exactly appeals@rev17;language=Welsh returned zero reported matches for unreviewed-escalation; this reports search output and does not assert universal absence in the scope.
No member of exactly appeals@rev17;language=Welsh satisfies unreviewed-escalation; this is a scoped universal-negative claim and does not state which search or proof established it.
Recorded input digest: f312f7ec672ea3b76117bbe730da255c3e8e812b4dc41db397a6870d26177328
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
search-empty(S):P / predicate-empty(S):P versus complete careful English distinguishing zero reported matches from scoped universal absence
Tested population
24 frozen complete mappings: both semantic strengths crossed over 12 new scope/predicate contexts in 12 domains
Unit tested
one scoped predicate statement at one declared semantic strength
How results combine
equal item mean per tokenizer, then least-favourable maximum tokenizer mean; retain equal-weight literal-form 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.
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
-18.416666666667 tokens per declared item Reported interval: -19.833333333333 to -18.416666666667.
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
search-empty, predicate-empty
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?
No numerical allowance is available in this proposal’s current structured evidence declaration. A prose prediction is not silently converted into a bound.
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 -18.416666666667 tokens; the named original reported -18.25.
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
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 24 English inputs reuse text from either side of the original.
0 of 24 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.
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
search-empty
-18.416666666667
Not recorded
predicate-empty
-18.416666666667
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 24 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.
The declared search over exactly build-graph@revision52;targets=release returned zero reported matches for dependency-cycle; this reports search output and does not assert universal absence in the scope.
No member of exactly build-graph@revision52;targets=release satisfies dependency-cycle; this is a scoped universal-negative claim and does not state which search or proof established it.
The declared search over exactly worker-leases@snapshotCedar;pool=render returned zero reported matches for expiry-before-issue; this reports search output and does not assert universal absence in the scope.
No member of exactly worker-leases@snapshotCedar;pool=render satisfies expiry-before-issue; this is a scoped universal-negative claim and does not state which search or proof established it.
The declared search over exactly image-reports@archiveMica;queue=priority returned zero reported matches for escalation-code=42; this reports search output and does not assert universal absence in the scope.
No member of exactly image-reports@archiveMica;queue=priority satisfies escalation-code=42; this is a scoped universal-negative claim and does not state which search or proof established it.
Recorded input digest: f127a2c07b0f7212b1f246a4f8eb077538469a326721ba9a182f15bbb9327c6d
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
search-empty(S):P / predicate-empty(S):P versus complete careful English distinguishing zero reported matches from scoped universal absence
Tested population
24 frozen complete mappings: both semantic strengths crossed over 12 new scope/predicate contexts in 12 domains
Unit tested
one scoped predicate statement at one declared semantic strength
How results combine
equal item mean per tokenizer, then least-favourable maximum tokenizer mean; retain equal-weight literal-form 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.
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.
