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 · Same recorded value
First result
[
"complete-careful-english-v1"
]
Second result
[
"complete-careful-english-v1"
]
Tested population · Same recorded value
First result
32 frozen complete task assignments, 16 per clusivity form across 32 new domains
Second result
32 frozen complete task assignments, 16 per clusivity form across 32 new domains
Unit tested · Same recorded value
First result
one complete task-assignment utterance
Second result
one complete task-assignment utterance
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-pair mean per tokenizer over all 32 utterances, then the least-favourable maximum tokenizer mean; retain both equal-weight clusivity forms separately"
}
Second result
{
"reducer": "least_favourable",
"rule": "equal-pair mean per tokenizer over all 32 utterances, then the least-favourable maximum tokenizer mean; retain both equal-weight clusivity forms 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
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
-1.5 tokens per declared item Reported interval: -2.5 to -1.5.
Fewer tokens on the named current tokenizers; this is the encoded-length difference, not the proposal decision.
English comparison
Complete, careful English
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
we-including-you, we-excluding-you
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
we-including-you
-2
Not recorded
we-excluding-you
-1
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 · inspect-rescue-rafts
English input
We — and that includes you — will inspect the rescue rafts before departure.
Ainglish input
we-including-you will inspect the rescue rafts before departure.
Condition
we-including-you
Input 2 · label-exhibit-crates
English input
We — and that includes you — will label the exhibit crates before loading.
Ainglish input
we-including-you will label the exhibit crates before loading.
Condition
we-including-you
Input 3 · survey-clinic-stock
English input
We — and that includes you — will survey the clinic stock on Tuesday.
Ainglish input
we-including-you will survey the clinic stock on Tuesday.
Condition
we-including-you
Input 4 · verify-orchard-gates
English input
We — and that includes you — will verify the orchard gates at sunrise.
Ainglish input
we-including-you will verify the orchard gates at sunrise.
Condition
we-including-you
Input 5 · translate-safety-cards
English input
We — and that includes you — will translate the cabin safety cards.
Ainglish input
we-including-you will translate the cabin safety cards.
Condition
we-including-you
Input 6 · calibrate-weighbridge
English input
We — and that includes you — will calibrate the weighbridge before the next convoy.
Ainglish input
we-including-you will calibrate the weighbridge before the next convoy.
Condition
we-including-you
Recorded input digest: c902ec1ede4653131eba8c0329d01c0423a19b1ff8c5909be630f0891822ff75
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 clusivity form versus its complete registered careful-English expansion
Tested population
32 frozen complete task assignments, 16 per clusivity form across 32 new domains
Unit tested
one complete task-assignment utterance
How results combine
equal-pair mean per tokenizer over all 32 utterances, then the least-favourable maximum tokenizer mean; retain both equal-weight clusivity forms 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.
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
-1.5 tokens per declared item Reported interval: -2.5 to -1.5.
Fewer tokens on the named current tokenizers; this is the encoded-length difference, not the proposal decision.
English comparison
Complete, careful English
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
we-including-you, we-excluding-you
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 -1.5 tokens; the named original reported -1.5.
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 32 English inputs reuse text from either side of the original.
0 of 32 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
we-including-you
-2
Not recorded
we-excluding-you
-1
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 · ex-clusivity-1920-01
English input
We — and that includes you — will practice the emergency towing procedure in the inlet.
Ainglish input
we-including-you will practice the emergency towing procedure in the inlet.
Condition
we-including-you
Input 2 · ex-clusivity-1920-02
English input
We — and that includes you — will mount the ceramic display supports after the gallery closes.
Ainglish input
we-including-you will mount the ceramic display supports after the gallery closes.
Condition
we-including-you
Input 3 · ex-clusivity-1920-03
English input
We — and that includes you — will inventory the handwashing kits at the outreach depot.
Ainglish input
we-including-you will inventory the handwashing kits at the outreach depot.
Condition
we-including-you
Input 4 · ex-clusivity-1920-04
English input
We — and that includes you — will flush the greenhouse irrigation pipes before planting.
Ainglish input
we-including-you will flush the greenhouse irrigation pipes before planting.
Condition
we-including-you
Input 5 · ex-clusivity-1920-05
English input
We — and that includes you — will rehearse the evacuation briefing with the trainee crew.
Ainglish input
we-including-you will rehearse the evacuation briefing with the trainee crew.
Condition
we-including-you
Input 6 · ex-clusivity-1920-06
English input
We — and that includes you — will measure the pallet clearances in the loading bay.
Ainglish input
we-including-you will measure the pallet clearances in the loading bay.
Condition
we-including-you
Recorded input digest: 1ca435c145cb22a1ef367f8ca608c438db5fd00eada7acaeddc1b2a147612065
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 clusivity form versus its complete registered careful-English expansion
Tested population
32 frozen complete task assignments, 16 per clusivity form across 32 new domains
Unit tested
one complete task-assignment utterance
How results combine
equal-pair mean per tokenizer over all 32 utterances, then the least-favourable maximum tokenizer mean; retain both equal-weight clusivity forms 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.
