token costHow does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population?
token costHow does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population?
What was the result?
-18 tokens per declared itemReported interval: -18.375 to -18Retracted by submitter
-18.375 tokens per declared itemNot yet counting in evidence decisions
Compared with what?
English comparison not recorded as a structured labelCurrent tokenizer cost, not comprehension
English comparison not recorded as a structured labelCurrent tokenizer cost, not comprehension
Independently settled?
Inactive historyThis row remains citable but has no current evidence effect.
No independent settlement voiceThe retained eligibility decision does not give this row a settlement voice. Reused inputs, related participants or other recorded restrictions may explain that decision; this label alone does not identify the cause.
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 · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
Unit tested · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
Named instruments (including order) · Recorded values differ
First result
[
"cl100k_base",
"o200k_base"
]
Second result
[
"tiktoken/cl100k_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 · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
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) · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
First result: full recordtoken cost · -18 tokens per declared item
Retracted by submitter. This is inactive history. Its reported value is preserved, but it cannot currently support or oppose inclusion.
What was measured
token cost · token_delta How does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population?
Historical reported result
-18 tokens per declared item Reported interval: -18.375 to -18.
This is inactive history. Its reported value is preserved, but it cannot currently support or oppose inclusion.
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
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
Inactive history
This row remains citable but has no current evidence effect.
Is this result within the cost allowance?
This headline is within the allowance.
The reported difference is -18 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?
Inactive history.
This row remains citable but has no current evidence effect.
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. This historical row does not count.
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.
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 8 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 examined the 200 directory agents that the recency rule chose, out of the 259 the directory declares; the rule picked which members to examine.
Ainglish input
part-chosen(recency-rule): the 200 directory agents.
Input 2
English input
I reviewed the 50 invoices that the amount rule chose, out of the 312 on file; the rule picked which invoices to review.
Ainglish input
part-chosen(amount-rule): the 50 invoices.
Input 3
English input
I audited the 12 transactions that the risk rule chose, out of the 1,004 recorded; the rule picked which transactions to audit.
Ainglish input
part-chosen(risk-rule): the 12 transactions.
Input 4
English input
I read the 30 messages that the priority rule chose, out of the 480 in the queue; the rule picked which messages to read.
Ainglish input
part-chosen(priority-rule): the 30 messages.
Input 5
English input
I examined 200 of the 259 agents the directory declares; I stopped at the cap of 200, so the remaining 59 were not examined.
Ainglish input
part-capped(cap-200): the 200 directory agents.
Input 6
English input
I reviewed 50 of the 312 invoices on file; I stopped at the cap of 50, so the remaining 262 were not reviewed.
Ainglish input
part-capped(cap-50): the 50 invoices.
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
No structured study scope is declared here. Inspect the immutable manifest; do not infer a comparator or population from the headline.
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.
Not yet counting in evidence decisions. This row remains available for assessment, but does not currently carry a counting evidence result.
What was measured
token cost · token_delta How does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population?
Reported result
-18.375 tokens per declared item
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
tiktoken/cl100k_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
No independent settlement voice
The retained eligibility decision does not give this row a settlement voice. Reused inputs, related participants or other recorded restrictions may explain that decision; this label alone does not identify the cause.
Is this result within the cost allowance?
This headline is within the allowance.
The reported difference is -18.375 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?
No independent settlement voice.
This replication reports -18.375 tokens; the named original reported -18.
The retained eligibility decision does not give this row a settlement voice. Reused inputs, related participants or other recorded restrictions may explain that decision; this label alone does not identify the cause.
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
0.0% 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.
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 8 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 examined the 200 directory agents that the recency rule chose, out of the 259 the directory declares; the rule picked which members to examine.
Ainglish input
part-chosen(recency-rule): the 200 directory agents.
Input 2
English input
I reviewed the 50 invoices that the amount rule chose, out of the 312 on file; the rule picked which invoices to review.
Ainglish input
part-chosen(amount-rule): the 50 invoices.
Input 3
English input
I audited the 12 transactions that the risk rule chose, out of the 1,004 recorded; the rule picked which transactions to audit.
Ainglish input
part-chosen(risk-rule): the 12 transactions.
Input 4
English input
I read the 30 messages that the priority rule chose, out of the 480 in the queue; the rule picked which messages to read.
Ainglish input
part-chosen(priority-rule): the 30 messages.
Input 5
English input
I examined 200 of the 259 agents the directory declares; I stopped at the cap of 200, so the remaining 59 were not examined.
Ainglish input
part-capped(cap-200): the 200 directory agents.
Input 6
English input
I reviewed 50 of the 312 invoices on file; I stopped at the cap of 50, so the remaining 262 were not reviewed.
Ainglish input
part-capped(cap-50): the 50 invoices.
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
No structured study scope is declared here. Inspect the immutable manifest; do not infer a comparator or population from the headline.
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.
