Evidence

Compare two experiments

Check what changed in the question, wording or readers before comparing the numbers.

This view keeps both results separate. It does not calculate a combined score or decide whether they reproduce each other.

Change the selected experimentsSearch by proposal, select a result or enter an exact identifier

Find experiments by proposal

Choose two experiments by title, measurement and date. The choices include up to 50 newest public completed results, plus your current selections. Historical results stay labelled. For older records, use the evidence explorer or exact entry below.

Use an exact experiment identifier instead

A full attempt UUID entered here replaces the corresponding choice above. Content hashes are not result identifiers.

Clear comparison

Compare the essentials

Read each question across both results. A matching description is not proof that the studies are scientifically comparable.

Question	First result	Second result
Which proposal?	Blank is not a value — type missing data as unknown, none, redacted, or inapplicable2026-09-02 21:42 UTC	Blank is not a value — type missing data as unknown, none, redacted, or inapplicable2026-09-19 12:55 UTC
What was measured?	comprehension accuracyHow does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?	comprehension accuracyHow does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?
What was the result?	-40.095 percentage pointsReported interval: -48.3694 to -32.0662Not yet counting in evidence decisions	-20.625 percentage pointsReported interval: -27.7101 to -14.0471Counts in current evidence decisions
Compared with what?	Other declared comparison; inspect the specificationReader exposure not recorded as a structured label	Other declared comparison; inspect the specificationReader exposure not recorded as a structured label
Independently settled?	DisputedEligible replications disagree and this original does not hold a settlement majority.	Disagrees with the named originalThis eligible row adds one disagreement. An adverse or null direction is a valid result and remains visible.

Inspect first result Inspect second result

What differs in the declared methods?

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

comprehension_accuracy_delta

Second result

comprehension_accuracy_delta

English comparison declarations · Same recorded value

First result

[
    "committed-per-item-comparator-v1"
]

Second result

[
    "committed-per-item-comparator-v1"
]

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

[
    "mistral-small3.2-24b-opaque-choice-q4_k_m@q4_k_m",
    "gemma3-12b-opaque-choice-q4_k_m@q4_k_m"
]

Second result

[
    "qwen25-7b-q4@q4_k_m",
    "deepseek-flash-minimal"
]

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) · Same recorded value

First result

[
    {
        "id": "value-unknown",
        "weight": 1
    },
    {
        "id": "value-none",
        "weight": 1
    },
    {
        "id": "value-redacted",
        "weight": 1
    },
    {
        "id": "value-inapplicable",
        "weight": 1
    }
]

Second result

[
    {
        "id": "value-unknown",
        "weight": 1
    },
    {
        "id": "value-none",
        "weight": 1
    },
    {
        "id": "value-redacted",
        "weight": 1
    },
    {
        "id": "value-inapplicable",
        "weight": 1
    }
]

First result: full recordcomprehension accuracy · -40.095 percentage points

First result · 2026-09-02 21:42 UTC

Blank is not a value — type missing data as unknown, none, redacted, or inapplicable

Not yet counting in evidence decisions. This row remains available for assessment, but does not currently carry a counting evidence result.

What was measured

comprehension accuracy · comprehension_accuracy_delta
How does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?

Reported result

-40.095 percentage points
Reported interval: -48.3694 to -32.0662.

The value falls on the registered harmful side of this metric’s neutral point.

English comparison

Other declared comparison; inspect the specification

Declared by the submitter; not a certification of equivalent information.

All four strata compare the compact semantic meta-value with its complete careful-English mapping; primary interpretation is non-inferiority at -5 percentage points with each form visible.

Reader exposure

Reader exposure not recorded as a structured label

Named instruments

mistral-small3.2-24b-opaque-choice-q4_k_m@q4_k_m, gemma3-12b-opaque-choice-q4_k_m@q4_k_m

Reader population not separately declared.

Conditions covered

Separate outcomes retained for all 4 declared conditions

value-unknown, value-none, value-redacted, value-inapplicable

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

Disputed

Eligible replications disagree and this original does not hold a settlement majority.

How often did each version lead to the right answer?

English comparison: 95.27%; 95.27%
Ainglish version: 55.17%; 55.17%

Reported real-item accuracy, not the separate calibration score. Both bars use the same 0–100% scale. The difference is measured in percentage points, not percent improvement. Any declared stratum weights are already applied.

Reported item-bootstrap interval: -48.3694 to -32.0662 percentage points.

This interval concerns the difference, not separate uncertainty bounds for either accuracy. It does not measure uncertainty across humans or future models.

Real cases: 160 · Named readers: 2. These are different units; multiple answers to one case are not new cases.

Does the overall result hide differences between conditions?

Every stored condition, without new pooling. Differences and intervals use percentage points. Condition names come from the frozen experiment.
Condition	Reported difference	Reported interval	English accuracy	Ainglish accuracy
`value-unknown`	-13.33	Not recorded	100.00%	86.67%
`value-none`	-36.89	Not recorded	81.08%	44.19%
`value-redacted`	-45.45	Not recorded	100.00%	54.55%
`value-inapplicable`	-64.71	Not recorded	100.00%	35.29%

A missing condition interval is not zero uncertainty. An overall interval cannot substitute for agreement in every load-bearing condition.

Inspect externally stored 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.

The input material is linked externally. The number of study items and controls in that file has not been checked by this website. “External file” does not mean zero inputs.

Open the declared external input artifact. This is an unverified external link, not a hosted or inspected copy.

Declared input digest: 106ca11a677a6e6a49f86e9f64234ef56e8828ceda56ff7957efac6bb87a5ffc. A recorded digest alone does not establish that the linked file matches it.

The website does not fetch the file. Verify the declared digest recipe before relying on it: SDK item digests use canonical JSON of the item array, not the raw pretty-printed file bytes.

No readable study input pairs are stored inline in this receipt. This does not mean the experiment used none.

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.

Absolute arm results

{
    "english": 0.95269999999999999129585148693877272307872772216796875,
    "ainglish": 0.55169999999999996820321257473551668226718902587890625,
    "chance": 0.25
}

Reader or tokenizer results

[
    {
        "model": "mistral-small3.2-24b-opaque-choice-q4_k_m",
        "value": -35.0775000000000005684341886080801486968994140625,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    },
    {
        "model": "gemma3-12b-opaque-choice-q4_k_m",
        "value": -45.719999999999998863131622783839702606201171875,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    }
]

Condition results

[
    {
        "id": "value-unknown",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.25,
        "value": -13.3300000000000000710542735760100185871124267578125,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": {
            "english": 1,
            "ainglish": 0.8667000000000000259348098552436567842960357666015625,
            "chance": 0.25
        },
        "resolution_bound": "resolvable"
    },
    {
        "id": "value-none",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.25,
        "value": -36.8900000000000005684341886080801486968994140625,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": {
            "english": 0.810799999999999965183405947755090892314910888671875,
            "ainglish": 0.441900000000000015010215292932116426527500152587890625,
            "chance": 0.25
        },
        "resolution_bound": "resolvable"
    },
    {
        "id": "value-redacted",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.25,
        "value": -45.4500000000000028421709430404007434844970703125,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": {
            "english": 1,
            "ainglish": 0.54549999999999998490096686509787105023860931396484375,
            "chance": 0.25
        },
        "resolution_bound": "resolvable"
    },
    {
        "id": "value-inapplicable",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.25,
        "value": -64.7099999999999937472239253111183643341064453125,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": {
            "english": 1,
            "ainglish": 0.3528999999999999914734871708787977695465087890625,
            "chance": 0.25
        },
        "resolution_bound": "resolvable"
    }
]

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt 89622ec3-f8ab-4cfa-97c0-dd5f520cad5d
Content b8237f69f3e30b7e2fb8605a92403e79057cbb6ca1db87ed76e32d1207053ae9

Second result: full recordcomprehension accuracy · -20.625 percentage points

Second result · 2026-09-19 12:55 UTC

Blank is not a value — type missing data as unknown, none, redacted, or inapplicable

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

comprehension accuracy · comprehension_accuracy_delta
How does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?

Reported result

-20.625 percentage points
Reported interval: -27.7101 to -14.0471.

The value falls on the registered harmful side of this metric’s neutral point.

English comparison

Other declared comparison; inspect the specification

Declared by the submitter; not a certification of equivalent information.

All four strata compare the compact semantic meta-value with its complete careful-English mapping: value-unknown = the property applies but the value's existence is unresolved; value-none = the property applies and no ordinary value exists; value-redacted = a source value existed and the named party removed it; value-inapplicable = the property does not apply. Each item also carries a boundary lure (an adjacent ordinary value such as zero, false, an empty string or collection) in BOTH arms.

Reader exposure

Reader exposure not recorded as a structured label

Named instruments

qwen25-7b-q4@q4_k_m, deepseek-flash-minimal

Reader population not separately declared.

Conditions covered

Separate outcomes retained for all 4 declared conditions

value-unknown, value-none, value-redacted, value-inapplicable

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

Disagrees with the named original

This eligible row adds one disagreement. An adverse or null direction is a valid result and remains visible.

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?

Complete-pair freshness is not available for this receipt.

Separate-arm overlap is unavailable or has not been computed. This does not mean zero reuse.

The item banks are referenced by digest rather than inspectable here. Compare the explicitly retrieved, digest-verified files before making a freshness claim.

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.

Declared target content identity

b8237f69f3e30b7e2fb8605a92403e79057cbb6ca1db87ed76e32d1207053ae9

How often did each version lead to the right answer?

English comparison: 96.25%; 96.25%
Ainglish version: 75.63%; 75.63%

Reported item-bootstrap interval: -27.7101 to -14.0471 percentage points.

This interval concerns the difference, not separate uncertainty bounds for either accuracy. It does not measure uncertainty across humans or future models.

Item-selection sensitivity warning. At least one reported reduced-item check changed direction or fell outside the full-item interval. Keep this warning with the score: the headline interval alone does not resolve sensitivity to which cases were included.

Real cases: 160 · Named readers: 2. These are different units; multiple answers to one case are not new cases.

Does the overall result hide differences between conditions?

Every stored condition, without new pooling. Differences and intervals use percentage points. Condition names come from the frozen experiment.
Condition	Reported difference	Reported interval	English accuracy	Ainglish accuracy
`value-unknown`	-12.5	Not recorded	100.00%	87.50%
`value-none`	-22.5	Not recorded	100.00%	77.50%
`value-redacted`	-40	Not recorded	100.00%	60.00%
`value-inapplicable`	-7.5	Not recorded	85.00%	77.50%

A missing condition interval is not zero uncertainty. An overall interval cannot substitute for agreement in every load-bearing condition.

Inspect externally stored 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.

The input material is linked externally. The number of study items and controls in that file has not been checked by this website. “External file” does not mean zero inputs.

Open the declared external input artifact. This is an unverified external link, not a hosted or inspected copy.

Declared input digest: cb8b04eba28e7314020379c406c7da114cba85e599bc4f0b57321f1dc8979a8f. A recorded digest alone does not establish that the linked file matches it.

The website does not fetch the file. Verify the declared digest recipe before relying on it: SDK item digests use canonical JSON of the item array, not the raw pretty-printed file bytes.

No readable study input pairs are stored inline in this receipt. This does not mean the experiment used none.

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

{
    "english": 0.96250000000000002220446049250313080847263336181640625,
    "ainglish": 0.756299999999999972288833305356092751026153564453125,
    "chance": 0.25
}

Reader or tokenizer results

[
    {
        "model": "qwen25-7b-q4",
        "value": -37.5,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    },
    {
        "model": "deepseek-flash-minimal",
        "value": -3.75
    }
]

Condition results

[
    {
        "id": "value-unknown",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.25,
        "value": -12.5,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": {
            "english": 1,
            "ainglish": 0.875,
            "chance": 0.25
        },
        "resolution_bound": "resolvable"
    },
    {
        "id": "value-none",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.25,
        "value": -22.5,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": {
            "english": 1,
            "ainglish": 0.77500000000000002220446049250313080847263336181640625,
            "chance": 0.25
        },
        "resolution_bound": "resolvable"
    },
    {
        "id": "value-redacted",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.25,
        "value": -40,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": {
            "english": 1,
            "ainglish": 0.59999999999999997779553950749686919152736663818359375,
            "chance": 0.25
        },
        "resolution_bound": "resolvable"
    },
    {
        "id": "value-inapplicable",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.25,
        "value": -7.5,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": {
            "english": 0.84999999999999997779553950749686919152736663818359375,
            "ainglish": 0.77500000000000002220446049250313080847263336181640625,
            "chance": 0.25
        },
        "resolution_bound": "resolvable"
    }
]

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt bfb88ebb-498f-4026-aa43-47b396714bfc
Content eb5401ea9ff4d5653ba7df3cf80cc61fa7878328a34fa2365363a4c71b53769f

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.