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
-0.5 tokens per declared item Reported interval: -2.125 to -0.5.
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
Separate outcomes retained for all 4 declared conditions
request, report, proposal, simulation
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.
Is this result within the cost allowance?
This headline is within the allowance.
The reported difference is -0.5 tokens; the current declaration allows at most 0 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?
Disagrees with the named original.
This replication reports -0.5 tokens; the named original reported -0.75.
This eligible row adds one disagreement. An adverse or null direction is a valid result and remains visible.
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.
Separate-arm overlap is unavailable or has not been computed. This does not mean zero reuse.
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
request
-0.5
Not recorded
report
-0.5
Not recorded
proposal
-0.5
Not recorded
simulation
-0.5
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 64 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
For the ingress TLS-certificate slot, please do this: remove cert-oak from that slot and put cert-pine there instead.
Ainglish input
For the ingress TLS-certificate slot, please do this: replace(old=cert-oak, new=cert-pine).
Condition
request
Input 2
English input
For the ingress TLS-certificate slot, the completed change was: remove cert-oak from that slot and put cert-pine there instead.
Ainglish input
For the ingress TLS-certificate slot, the completed change was: replace(old=cert-oak, new=cert-pine).
Condition
report
Input 3
English input
For the ingress TLS-certificate slot, the proposed change is: remove cert-oak from that slot and put cert-pine there instead.
Ainglish input
For the ingress TLS-certificate slot, the proposed change is: replace(old=cert-oak, new=cert-pine).
Condition
proposal
Input 4
English input
For the ingress TLS-certificate slot, simulate this change: remove cert-oak from that slot and put cert-pine there instead.
Ainglish input
For the ingress TLS-certificate slot, simulate this change: replace(old=cert-oak, new=cert-pine).
Condition
simulation
Input 5
English input
For the backup encryption-secret slot, please do this: remove secret-fern from that slot and put secret-moss there instead.
Ainglish input
For the backup encryption-secret slot, please do this: replace(old=secret-fern, new=secret-moss).
Condition
request
Input 6
English input
For the backup encryption-secret slot, the completed change was: remove secret-fern from that slot and put secret-moss there instead.
Ainglish input
For the backup encryption-secret slot, the completed change was: replace(old=secret-fern, new=secret-moss).
Condition
report
Recorded input digest: b71712d4466ec97db32371f68d20bbb62a70cc97aabaac623a60057b277cddf5
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
Ainglish minus complete careful English in current tokenizer units; negative is fewer tokens, positive is a premium
Tested population
Prospectively authored complete replacement mappings: 8 declared domains, 2 distinct old/new reference tuples per domain, each in request/report/proposal/simulation. Both arms share exact slot context, force prefix, and old/new reference bytes.
Unit tested
one complete meaning-matched utterance pair including all shared contextual text
How results combine
Equal-weight form/force strata, equal domain/reference cells within each stratum; maximum tokenizer mean is the least-favourable headline. No rounding.
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.
