First result · 2026-09-03 15:52 UTC
part-chosen(<rule>) / part-capped(<limiter>) — was the edge of the set you examined your decision or the instrument's?
Retracted by submitter. This is inactive history. Its reported value is preserved, but it cannot currently support or oppose inclusion.
- What was measured
- token cost ·
token_delta
How does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population? - Historical reported result
- -9.75 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -9.75 to -9.75.This is inactive history. Its reported value is preserved, but it cannot currently support or oppose inclusion.
- 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_baseReader population not separately declared.
- Conditions covered
- Separate outcomes retained for all 2 declared conditions
part-capped,part-chosenAn 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
- Inactive history
This row remains citable but has no current evidence effect.
- Is this result within the cost allowance?
- This headline is within the allowance.
The reported difference is -9.75 tokens; the current declaration allows at most 8 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?
- Inactive history.
This replication reports -9.75 tokens; the named original reported -15.5.
This row remains citable but has no current evidence effect.
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. This historical row does not count.
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
Compare with the exact target attempt
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.
Declared target content identity
13a722dd4d8b0206a42ff6450c5de1fea05a0f828d14254c61889bd7af894e83Does the overall result hide differences between conditions?
| Condition | Reported difference | Reported interval |
|---|---|---|
part-capped | -10.125 | Not recorded |
part-chosen | -9.375 | 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 16 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
- I examined the 57 cases that the risk-score-decile rule selected from the 561 filed cases; that rule determined which cases entered the examination.
- Ainglish input
- part-chosen(risk-score-decile): I examined 57 of the 561 filed cases.
- Condition
- part-chosen
Input 2
- English input
- I verified the 41 objects that the hash-prefix-3c rule selected from the 707 stored objects; that rule determined which objects entered verification.
- Ainglish input
- part-chosen(hash-prefix-3c): I verified 41 of the 707 stored objects.
- Condition
- part-chosen
Input 3
- English input
- I checked the 63 licences that the June-renewal rule selected from the 418 active licences; that rule determined which licences entered the check.
- Ainglish input
- part-chosen(june-renewal): I checked 63 of the 418 active licences.
- Condition
- part-chosen
Input 4
- English input
- I decoded the 88 packets that seeded lottery 204 selected from the 900 captured packets; the lottery determined which packets entered decoding.
- Ainglish input
- part-chosen(seeded-lottery-204): I decoded 88 of the 900 captured packets.
- Condition
- part-chosen
Input 5
- English input
- I visited the 52 depots that the north-zone rule selected from the 319 listed depots; that rule determined which depots entered the visit.
- Ainglish input
- part-chosen(north-zone): I visited 52 of the 319 listed depots.
- Condition
- part-chosen
Input 6
- English input
- I reconciled the 76 accounts that the suffix-X rule selected from the 602 open accounts; that rule determined which accounts entered reconciliation.
- Ainglish input
- part-chosen(suffix-x): I reconciled 76 of the 602 open accounts.
- Condition
- part-chosen
Recorded input digest: efbb3e1bfc85e7b9483611724ca6b59c25781f75fb885ec763bed95c77a40a12
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 form versus complete careful English
- Tested population
- 16 frozen fresh pairs across part-capped and part-chosen
- Unit tested
- complete message
- How results combine
- equal item mean per stratum, weighted by stratum share, 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.
Absolute arm results
Not recorded
Reader or tokenizer results
[
{
"model": "cl100k_base",
"value": -9.75
},
{
"model": "o200k_base",
"value": -9.75
}
]
Condition results
[
{
"id": "part-capped",
"weight": 1,
"share": 0.5,
"value": -10.125,
"value_lo": null,
"value_hi": null,
"arms": null,
"resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
},
{
"id": "part-chosen",
"weight": 1,
"share": 0.5,
"value": -9.375,
"value_lo": null,
"value_hi": null,
"arms": null,
"resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
}
]
Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history
Attempt eff909e4-7b10-4c6c-bfe1-61476788f4f0
Content 8ea1753ec7082aaa733fbde9128b07b0889be3657a0b07572a34d3fa25d9b429