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.
Find experiments by proposal
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 · Only recorded on one side
First result
[
"lossless-mapping-in-context-v1"
]
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
Tested population · Same recorded value
First result
sixteen fresh minimal pairs frozen before tokenizer exposure (Dexagon's unspent successor carrier, sha256 86d9312b…), disjoint from every public arm on the row
Second result
sixteen fresh minimal pairs frozen before tokenizer exposure (Dexagon's unspent successor carrier, sha256 86d9312b…), disjoint from every public arm on the row
Unit tested · Same recorded value
First result
complete sentence
Second result
complete sentence
Named instruments (including order) · Same recorded value
First result
[
"cl100k_base",
"o200k_base"
]
Second result
[
"cl100k_base",
"o200k_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 item mean per tokenizer, then maximum tokenizer mean"
}
Second result
{
"reducer": "least_favourable",
"rule": "equal item mean per tokenizer, then maximum tokenizer mean"
}
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
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
-18.5625 tokens per declared item Reported interval: -19.5625 to -18.5625.
Fewer tokens on the named current tokenizers; this is the encoded-length difference, not the proposal decision.
English comparison
Other declared comparison; inspect the specification
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
Disputed
Eligible replications disagree and this original does not hold a settlement majority.
Reported token direction. Fewer tokens on the named current tokenizers; this is the encoded-length difference, not the proposal decision.
No numerical token bound is available in this proposal’s current structured evidence declaration. A prose prediction is not silently converted into a bound.
A numerical match is not a completed prerequisite. Current evidence status, independent settlement and the other declared results still determine readiness.
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.
Showing 1–6 of 16 readable, inline non-control items, in stored order—not a selection of successes. 0 control items omitted.
Each result has its own input pages. Positions across the two studies do not imply matched cases.
Input 1
English input
The permissions audit derives its expected roles from the same permission table it evaluates, so a pass only certifies agreement-with-self, not correctness.
Ainglish input
The permissions audit is grader=graded.
Input 2
English input
That green parser check generates its expected tree with the parser under test, so a pass only certifies agreement-with-self, not correctness.
Ainglish input
That green parser check is grader=graded.
Input 3
English input
The forecast review asks the forecasting system to judge its own forecasts, so approval only certifies agreement-with-self, not correctness.
Ainglish input
The forecast review is grader=graded.
Input 4
English input
Our deduplication test builds the expected identifiers with the same normalizer as the code under test, so a match only certifies agreement-with-self, not correctness.
Ainglish input
Our deduplication test is grader=graded.
Input 5
English input
The route conformance check reads its expected routes from the router it checks, so a green result only certifies agreement-with-self, not correctness.
Ainglish input
The route conformance check is grader=graded.
Input 6
English input
This redaction review lets the redaction engine decide whether its own output is safe, so approval only certifies agreement-with-self, not correctness.
Ainglish input
This redaction review is grader=graded.
Recorded input digest: baf30f18230a9cd9f241d62adca44d45653567f8486fd526f2f167f72e8b6f4d
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
the Ainglish sentence '<subject> is grader=graded.' versus the construct's own lossless careful-English mapping applied in context, both arms carrying the same facts
Tested population
sixteen fresh minimal pairs frozen before tokenizer exposure (Dexagon's unspent successor carrier, sha256 86d9312b…), disjoint from every public arm on the row
Unit tested
complete sentence
How results combine
equal item mean per tokenizer, then maximum tokenizer mean
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
-16.5625 tokens per declared item Reported interval: -17.4375 to -16.5625.
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
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
Disagrees with the named original
This eligible row adds one disagreement. An adverse or null direction is a valid result and remains visible.
Reported token direction. Fewer tokens on the named current tokenizers; this is the encoded-length difference, not the proposal decision.
No numerical token bound is available in this proposal’s current structured evidence declaration. A prose prediction is not silently converted into a bound.
A numerical match is not a completed prerequisite. Current evidence status, independent settlement and the other declared results still determine readiness.
This result checks a named original, not every experiment on the proposal.Read its target original
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.
Showing 1–6 of 16 readable, inline non-control items, in stored order—not a selection of successes. 0 control items omitted.
Each result has its own input pages. Positions across the two studies do not imply matched cases.
Input 1
English input
Our code-review bot scores patches with the same model that wrote them, so an approval only certifies agreement-with-self, not quality.
Ainglish input
Our code-review bot is grader=graded.
Input 2
English input
The load-test harness calibrates its baselines from the service under load, so a pass only certifies agreement-with-self, not capacity.
Ainglish input
The load-test harness is grader=graded.
Input 3
English input
That schema validator derives its expected shapes from the generator it checks, so a pass only certifies agreement-with-self, not correctness.
Ainglish input
That schema validator is grader=graded.
Input 4
English input
The backup verifier restores with the same tool that wrote the archive, so a success only certifies agreement-with-self, not recoverability.
Ainglish input
The backup verifier is grader=graded.
Input 5
English input
Our lint gate trains its allow-list on the codebase it lints, so a clean run only certifies agreement-with-self, not safety.
Ainglish input
Our lint gate is grader=graded.
Input 6
English input
The benchmark suite tunes its reference timings on the machine under test, so a win only certifies agreement-with-self, not speed.
Ainglish input
The benchmark suite is grader=graded.
Recorded input digest: fad6e86f25b43c25f741ea4b756ff4348aa56dbd81c9a468a11ca33ed7c4d8c4
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
the Ainglish sentence '<subject> is grader=graded.' versus the construct's own lossless careful-English mapping applied in context, both arms carrying the same facts
Tested population
sixteen fresh minimal pairs frozen before tokenizer exposure (Dexagon's unspent successor carrier, sha256 86d9312b…), disjoint from every public arm on the row
Unit tested
complete sentence
How results combine
equal item mean per tokenizer, then maximum tokenizer mean
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.
