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?	replied-no / no-reply-from — did they say no, or did no answer arrive?2026-09-07 14:56 UTC	replied-no / no-reply-from — did they say no, or did no answer arrive?2026-10-18 09:59 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?	8.125 tokens per declared itemReported interval: 3.125 to 8.125Not yet counting in evidence decisions	7.625 tokens per declared itemReported interval: 2.75 to 7.625Retracted by submitter
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?	Awaiting independent settlementAn original reports one result. It does not confirm itself.	Inactive historyThis row remains citable but has no current evidence effect.

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 · Same recorded value

First result

cl100k_base/o200k_base/p50k_base

Second result

cl100k_base/o200k_base/p50k_base

Unit tested · Same recorded value

First result

pair

Second result

pair

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": "maximum tokenizer mean"
}

Second result

{
    "reducer": "least_favourable",
    "rule": "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

First result

Not recorded in this structured field

Second result

Not recorded in this structured field

First result: full recordtoken cost · 8.125 tokens per declared item

First result · 2026-09-07 14:56 UTC

replied-no / no-reply-from — did they say no, or did no answer arrive?

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: 8.125 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: 3.125 to 8.125.
More 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: Awaiting independent settlement
An original reports one result. It does not confirm itself.

Is this result within the cost allowance?

This headline is outside the allowance. The reported difference is 8.125 tokens; the current declaration allows at most 3 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?

Awaiting independent settlement.

An original reports one result. It does not confirm itself.

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 8 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: Mira sent a negative reply to invitation 7.
Ainglish input: Mira replied-no(to=invite-7).

Input 2

English input: As of 17:00 UTC on 6 September 2026, no email reply from Lee to invitation 7 had been observed; this does not say Lee refused.
Ainglish input: no-reply-from(Lee, to=invite-7, via=email) as_of(2026-09-06T17:00Z).

Input 3

English input: Sam declined the review request.
Ainglish input: Sam replied-no(to=review-request-12).

Input 4

English input: As of noon today, no Slack response from Priya to the deploy approval has been seen; this does not mean Priya refused.
Ainglish input: no-reply-from(Priya, to=deploy-approval-3, via=slack) as_of(2026-09-07T12:00Z).

Input 5

English input: The client rejected the proposal.
Ainglish input: The client replied-no(to=proposal-44).

Input 6

English input: As of 5 PM, no response from the vendor to the contract terms has been received; this is not a rejection.
Ainglish input: no-reply-from(vendor, to=contract-terms, via=email) as_of(2026-09-07T17:00Z).

Recorded input digest: ed67abffc7280b1ab843f61ecc1be89ef13fed28f2b9dba9f9749f8d7381f9ee

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: token_delta
Tested population: cl100k_base/o200k_base/p50k_base
Unit tested: pair
How results combine: 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": 3.125
    },
    {
        "model": "o200k_base",
        "value": 3.75
    },
    {
        "model": "p50k_base",
        "value": 8.125
    }
]

Condition results

Not recorded

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt f2221e32-a323-4f7e-a17e-d8bd50bf55dd
Content 305e36e38759b94ec39978ded7ae89bdc73119d4fe6ffa19a0cc65cd9bda0d81

Second result: full recordtoken cost · 7.625 tokens per declared item

Second result · 2026-10-18 09:59 UTC

replied-no / no-reply-from — did they say no, or did no answer arrive?

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: 7.625 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: 2.75 to 7.625.
This is inactive history. Its reported value is preserved, but it cannot currently support or oppose inclusion.
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: Inactive history
This row remains citable but has no current evidence effect.

Is this result within the cost allowance?

This headline is outside the allowance. The reported difference is 7.625 tokens; the current declaration allows at most 3 tokens.

Has the original estimate been independently reproduced?

Inactive history. This replication reports 7.625 tokens; the named original reported 8.125.

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.

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 8 English inputs reuse text from either side of the original.
0 of 8 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.

Declared target content identity

305e36e38759b94ec39978ded7ae89bdc73119d4fe6ffa19a0cc65cd9bda0d81

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 8 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: Noor sent a negative reply to the budget request.
Ainglish input: Noor replied-no(to=budget-request-3).

Input 2

English input: As of 09:00 UTC on 18 October 2026, no email reply from Noor to the budget request had been observed; this does not say Noor refused.
Ainglish input: no-reply-from(Noor, to=budget-request-3, via=email) as_of(2026-10-18T09:00Z).

Input 3

English input: Tomas turned down the speaking slot.
Ainglish input: Tomas replied-no(to=speaking-slot-2).

Input 4

English input: As of 3 PM today, no Slack response from Tomas to the speaking-slot offer has been seen; this does not mean Tomas declined.
Ainglish input: no-reply-from(Tomas, to=speaking-slot-2, via=slack) as_of(2026-10-18T15:00Z).

Input 5

English input: The landlord said no to the sublet request.
Ainglish input: The landlord replied-no(to=sublet-request-8).

Input 6

English input: As of this evening, no reply from the landlord to the sublet request has arrived; this is not a refusal.
Ainglish input: no-reply-from(landlord, to=sublet-request-8, via=email) as_of(2026-10-18T18:00Z).

Recorded input digest: 87ef15312ef49f5ffb3ccb4d079fe927bd5ec5d63b621fd2e90193a50b06b1ff

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: token_delta
Tested population: cl100k_base/o200k_base/p50k_base
Unit tested: pair
How results combine: 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

Not recorded

Reader or tokenizer results

[
    {
        "model": "cl100k_base",
        "value": 2.75
    },
    {
        "model": "o200k_base",
        "value": 3.5
    },
    {
        "model": "p50k_base",
        "value": 7.625
    }
]

Condition results

Not recorded

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt 93029d68-2909-4d7c-a1bf-bf4f245fb1ee
Content 29878b9b972320d0115c983077b3c0883a019295daa7fbc12484ebced839b633

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.