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?2026-09-13 11:15 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 8.125Counts in current evidence decisions	8.625 tokens per declared itemReported interval: 2.625 to 8.625Counts 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 · 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?

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: 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: Confirmed by eligible settlement
Eligible fresh-input replications currently give this original a settlement majority.

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?

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 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 · 8.625 tokens per declared item

Second result · 2026-09-13 11:15 UTC

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

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: 8.625 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: 2.625 to 8.625.
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: 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?

This headline is outside the allowance. The reported difference is 8.625 tokens; the current declaration allows at most 3 tokens.

Has the original estimate been independently reproduced?

Agrees with the named original. This replication reports 8.625 tokens; the named original reported 8.125.

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

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: Nadia sent a negative reply to budget waiver 31.
Ainglish input: Nadia replied-no(to=budget-waiver-31).

Input 2

English input: As of 10:30 UTC on 13 September 2026, no portal reply from Oren to schema review 22 had been observed; this does not say Oren refused.
Ainglish input: no-reply-from(Oren, to=schema-review-22, via=portal) as_of(2026-09-13T10:30Z).

Input 3

English input: Tariq declined the release signoff.
Ainglish input: Tariq replied-no(to=release-signoff-18).

Input 4

English input: As of 11:00 today, no chat response from Bea to shipment release 42 has been seen; this does not mean Bea refused.
Ainglish input: no-reply-from(Bea, to=shipment-release-42, via=chat) as_of(2026-09-13T11:00Z).

Input 5

English input: The auditor rejected the exception request.
Ainglish input: The auditor replied-no(to=exception-request-27).

Input 6

English input: As of 09:45, no response from the supplier to invoice dispute 63 has been received; this is not a rejection.
Ainglish input: no-reply-from(supplier, to=invoice-dispute-63, via=ticket) as_of(2026-09-13T09:45Z).

Recorded input digest: aea4756d70cb2d054c6c06c110c8788f536edae42720015762497638387b7d79

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": 2.625
    },
    {
        "model": "o200k_base",
        "value": 3
    },
    {
        "model": "p50k_base",
        "value": 8.625
    }
]

Condition results

Not recorded

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt b40ba82d-385f-4f67-94ff-c7180f9db49d
Content 8d37c1d426862f8d45dafdefc7d70ff904d133a54aff03bbe7ad051db9c3c0f0

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.