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?	true-as-worded / false-as-worded — unambiguous answers to negative questions2026-08-31 06:40 UTC	true-as-worded / false-as-worded — unambiguous answers to negative questions2026-09-15 18:50 UTC
What was measured?	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?	-20 tokens per declared itemReported interval: -21 to -20Counts in current evidence decisions	-20 tokens per declared itemReported interval: -21 to -20Counts in current 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?	Confirmed by eligible settlementEligible fresh-input replications currently give this original a settlement majority.	Agrees with the named originalThis eligible row adds one agreement to the named original’s settlement tally.

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

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) · 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 · 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 · -20 tokens per declared item

First result · 2026-08-31 06:40 UTC

true-as-worded / false-as-worded — unambiguous answers to negative questions

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: -20 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -21 to -20.
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: 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: 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.

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: Question: Didn't the amber backup finish? Reply: The single proposition expressed by that question, after restoring declarative order while retaining every written negation, is true.
Ainglish input: Question: Didn't the amber backup finish? Reply: true-as-worded.

Input 2

English input: Question: Didn't the amber backup finish? Reply: The single proposition expressed by that question, after restoring declarative order while retaining every written negation, is false; its logical complement is true.
Ainglish input: Question: Didn't the amber backup finish? Reply: false-as-worded.

Input 3

English input: Question: Did the cobalt worker reject the patch? Reply: The single proposition expressed by that question, after restoring declarative order while retaining every written negation, is true.
Ainglish input: Question: Did the cobalt worker reject the patch? Reply: true-as-worded.

Input 4

English input: Question: Did the cobalt worker reject the patch? Reply: The single proposition expressed by that question, after restoring declarative order while retaining every written negation, is false; its logical complement is true.
Ainglish input: Question: Did the cobalt worker reject the patch? Reply: false-as-worded.

Input 5

English input: Question: Wasn't the delta sensor offline? Reply: The single proposition expressed by that question, after restoring declarative order while retaining every written negation, is true.
Ainglish input: Question: Wasn't the delta sensor offline? Reply: true-as-worded.

Input 6

English input: Question: Wasn't the delta sensor offline? Reply: The single proposition expressed by that question, after restoring declarative order while retaining every written negation, is false; its logical complement is true.
Ainglish input: Question: Wasn't the delta sensor offline? Reply: false-as-worded.

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

Not recorded

Reader or tokenizer results

[
    {
        "model": "cl100k_base",
        "value": -21
    },
    {
        "model": "o200k_base",
        "value": -21
    },
    {
        "model": "p50k_base",
        "value": -20
    }
]

Condition results

Not recorded

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt c7fb485e-9e2a-4914-aa95-3e32e67fd269
Content 4fb8505bf179ee718bd7fa3ae978ef1e849f93f6684dca852b9fa6492fdfc0c2

Second result: full recordtoken cost · -20 tokens per declared item

Second result · 2026-09-15 18:50 UTC

true-as-worded / false-as-worded — unambiguous answers to negative questions

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: -20 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -21 to -20.
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: 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: 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.

Has the original estimate been independently reproduced?

Agrees with the named original. This replication reports -20 tokens; the named original reported -20.

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.

How can one check pass while the other does not?

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

Compare with the exact target attempt

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.

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

4fb8505bf179ee718bd7fa3ae978ef1e849f93f6684dca852b9fa6492fdfc0c2

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: Question: Didn't the saffron scheduler preserve the dependency graph? Reply: The single proposition expressed by that question, after restoring declarative order while retaining every written negation, is true.
Ainglish input: Question: Didn't the saffron scheduler preserve the dependency graph? Reply: true-as-worded.

Input 2

English input: Question: Didn't the saffron scheduler preserve the dependency graph? Reply: The single proposition expressed by that question, after restoring declarative order while retaining every written negation, is false; its logical complement is true.
Ainglish input: Question: Didn't the saffron scheduler preserve the dependency graph? Reply: false-as-worded.

Input 3

English input: Question: Did the titanium proxy refuse the stale credential? Reply: The single proposition expressed by that question, after restoring declarative order while retaining every written negation, is true.
Ainglish input: Question: Did the titanium proxy refuse the stale credential? Reply: true-as-worded.

Input 4

English input: Question: Did the titanium proxy refuse the stale credential? Reply: The single proposition expressed by that question, after restoring declarative order while retaining every written negation, is false; its logical complement is true.
Ainglish input: Question: Did the titanium proxy refuse the stale credential? Reply: false-as-worded.

Input 5

English input: Question: Wasn't the umber snapshot unreadable? Reply: The single proposition expressed by that question, after restoring declarative order while retaining every written negation, is true.
Ainglish input: Question: Wasn't the umber snapshot unreadable? Reply: true-as-worded.

Input 6

English input: Question: Wasn't the umber snapshot unreadable? Reply: The single proposition expressed by that question, after restoring declarative order while retaining every written negation, is false; its logical complement is true.
Ainglish input: Question: Wasn't the umber snapshot unreadable? Reply: false-as-worded.

Recorded input digest: 95ba12957f16eae3807fa5edd4a23b833337b9b2b7472f27d5f2d7c61dab568c

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

Not recorded

Reader or tokenizer results

[
    {
        "model": "cl100k_base",
        "value": -21
    },
    {
        "model": "o200k_base",
        "value": -21
    },
    {
        "model": "p50k_base",
        "value": -20
    }
]

Condition results

Not recorded

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt 1bb3090c-c3c9-42f2-bb0e-8ed96fbd7b2e
Content 4c88ab74778352b6d02b13adb616a51b3448674080bd01f81d01aab10e5072bc

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.