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?
0.875 tokens per declared itemReported interval: 0.25 to 0.875Not yet counting in evidence decisions
0.875 tokens per declared itemReported interval: 0.25 to 0.875Not 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?
DisputedEligible replications disagree and this original does not hold a settlement majority.
No independent settlement voiceThis can test whether an implementation repeats on reused inputs, but reused inputs cannot independently confirm the claim.
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
32 fresh authored pairs: 16 no-undo and 16 can-undo(<how>), balanced report/instruction shapes and path-only/windowed/holder/cost how-slots; not random natural prose
Second result
32 fresh authored pairs: 16 no-undo and 16 can-undo(<how>), balanced report/instruction shapes and path-only/windowed/holder/cost how-slots; not random natural prose
Unit tested · Same recorded value
First result
one complete action sentence with its reversibility tag or clause
Second result
one complete action sentence with its reversibility tag or clause
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 cell means per tokenizer then maximum tokenizer mean (least-favourable) across cl100k_base, o200k_base and p50k_base; retain the no-undo and can-undo strata separately"
}
Second result
{
"reducer": "least_favourable",
"rule": "equal cell means per tokenizer then maximum tokenizer mean (least-favourable) across cl100k_base, o200k_base and p50k_base; retain the no-undo and can-undo strata separately"
}
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
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
0.875 tokens per declared item Reported interval: 0.25 to 0.875.
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_base
Reader population not separately declared.
Conditions covered
Separate outcomes retained for all 2 declared conditions
no-undo, can-undo
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.
Is this result within the cost allowance?
This headline is within the allowance.
The reported difference is 0.875 tokens; the current declaration allows at most 2 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?
Disputed.
Eligible replications disagree and this original does not hold 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
no-undo
1
Not recorded
can-undo
0.75
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 32 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 temporary cluster was dismantled irreversibly.
Ainglish input
The temporary cluster was dismantled, no-undo.
Condition
no-undo
Input 2
English input
Drop the legacy analytics table irreversibly.
Ainglish input
Drop the legacy analytics table, no-undo.
Condition
no-undo
Input 3
English input
The customer invoice was voided irrevocably.
Ainglish input
The customer invoice was voided, no-undo.
Condition
no-undo
Input 4
English input
Terminate the idle GPU reservation irreversibly.
Ainglish input
Terminate the idle GPU reservation, no-undo.
Condition
no-undo
Input 5
English input
The stale webhook deliveries were purged irreversibly.
Ainglish input
The stale webhook deliveries were purged, no-undo.
Condition
no-undo
Input 6
English input
Consume the one-time invite code irreversibly.
Ainglish input
Consume the one-time invite code, no-undo.
Condition
no-undo
Recorded input digest: f1f9189c5dfbfb33ab93d4372c0f4b445df00a3a7792e4c5a355968bdf6b5642
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 no-undo / can-undo(<how>) trailing tag minus the shortest content-matched careful-English rendering (irreversibly / irrevocably; restorable from X / reversible via X) carrying the same action, path, window and loss; clausal 'this cannot be undone' renderings are out of scope by the pinned comparator genre
Tested population
32 fresh authored pairs: 16 no-undo and 16 can-undo(<how>), balanced report/instruction shapes and path-only/windowed/holder/cost how-slots; not random natural prose
Unit tested
one complete action sentence with its reversibility tag or clause
How results combine
equal cell means per tokenizer then maximum tokenizer mean (least-favourable) across cl100k_base, o200k_base and p50k_base; retain the no-undo and can-undo strata separately
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.
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
0.875 tokens per declared item Reported interval: 0.25 to 0.875.
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_base
Reader population not separately declared.
Conditions covered
Separate outcomes retained for all 2 declared conditions
no-undo, can-undo
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
This can test whether an implementation repeats on reused inputs, but reused inputs cannot independently confirm the claim.
Is this result within the cost allowance?
This headline is within the allowance.
The reported difference is 0.875 tokens; the current declaration allows at most 2 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 0.875 tokens; the named original reported 0.875.
This can test whether an implementation repeats on reused inputs, but reused inputs cannot independently confirm the claim.
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
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
no-undo
1
Not recorded
can-undo
0.75
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 32 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 temporary cluster was dismantled irreversibly.
Ainglish input
The temporary cluster was dismantled, no-undo.
Condition
no-undo
Input 2
English input
Drop the legacy analytics table irreversibly.
Ainglish input
Drop the legacy analytics table, no-undo.
Condition
no-undo
Input 3
English input
The customer invoice was voided irrevocably.
Ainglish input
The customer invoice was voided, no-undo.
Condition
no-undo
Input 4
English input
Terminate the idle GPU reservation irreversibly.
Ainglish input
Terminate the idle GPU reservation, no-undo.
Condition
no-undo
Input 5
English input
The stale webhook deliveries were purged irreversibly.
Ainglish input
The stale webhook deliveries were purged, no-undo.
Condition
no-undo
Input 6
English input
Consume the one-time invite code irreversibly.
Ainglish input
Consume the one-time invite code, no-undo.
Condition
no-undo
Recorded input digest: f1f9189c5dfbfb33ab93d4372c0f4b445df00a3a7792e4c5a355968bdf6b5642
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 no-undo / can-undo(<how>) trailing tag minus the shortest content-matched careful-English rendering (irreversibly / irrevocably; restorable from X / reversible via X) carrying the same action, path, window and loss; clausal 'this cannot be undone' renderings are out of scope by the pinned comparator genre
Tested population
32 fresh authored pairs: 16 no-undo and 16 can-undo(<how>), balanced report/instruction shapes and path-only/windowed/holder/cost how-slots; not random natural prose
Unit tested
one complete action sentence with its reversibility tag or clause
How results combine
equal cell means per tokenizer then maximum tokenizer mean (least-favourable) across cl100k_base, o200k_base and p50k_base; retain the no-undo and can-undo strata separately
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.
