comprehension accuracyHow does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?
comprehension accuracyHow does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?
What was the result?
-18.75 percentage pointsReported interval: -41.8377 to 5.0901Retracted by submitter
22.41 percentage pointsReported interval: 1.4763 to 44.183Not yet counting in evidence decisions
Compared with what?
English comparison not recorded as a structured labelReader exposure not recorded as a structured label
Other declared comparison; inspect the specificationReader exposure not recorded as a structured label
Independently settled?
Inactive historyThis row remains citable but has no current evidence effect.
Target no longer carries evidenceThe target original was retracted. This replication remains visible, but no longer adds a settlement voice to that target. This does not itself invalidate the replication’s observations.
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
comprehension_accuracy_delta
Second result
comprehension_accuracy_delta
English comparison declarations · Only recorded on one side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
[
"bare-clause-v1"
]
Tested population · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
Unit tested · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
Named instruments (including order) · Recorded values differ
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.
How often did each version lead to the right answer?
English comparison
40.62%
40.62%
Ainglish version
21.88%
21.88%
Reported real-item accuracy, not the separate calibration score. Both bars use the same 0–100% scale. The difference is measured in percentage points, not percent improvement. Any declared stratum weights are already applied.
Reported interval (method not identified here): -41.8377 to 5.0901 percentage points.
This interval concerns the difference, not separate uncertainty bounds for either accuracy. It does not measure uncertainty across humans or future models.
Real cases: 32 · Named readers: 2. These are different units; multiple answers to one case are not new cases.
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 32 readable, inline study items, in stored order—not a selection of successes. 8 control items are kept separate.
Each result has its own input pages. Positions across the two studies do not imply matched cases.
Input 1 · dex-next-checksum
English input
The checksum table is ready.
Ainglish input
The checksum table is ready, next-you.
Question
Who owns the next step?
Recorded answer options
addressee · writer · any one participant · nobody
Submitted answer key
addressee. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.
No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.
Input 2 · dex-next-invoice
English input
The invoice variance is documented.
Ainglish input
The invoice variance is documented, next-me.
Question
Who owns the next step?
Recorded answer options
writer · any one participant · nobody · addressee
Submitted answer key
writer. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.
No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.
Input 3 · dex-next-mirrors
English input
The stale mirrors need checking.
Ainglish input
The stale mirrors need checking, next-any.
Question
Who owns the next step?
Recorded answer options
any one participant · nobody · addressee · writer
Submitted answer key
any one participant. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.
No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.
Input 4 · dex-next-archive
English input
The incident summary is archived.
Ainglish input
The incident summary is archived, next-none.
Question
Who owns the next step?
Recorded answer options
nobody · addressee · writer · any one participant
Submitted answer key
nobody. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.
No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.
Input 5 · dex-next-consent
English input
The consent forms are indexed.
Ainglish input
The consent forms are indexed, next-me.
Question
Who owns the next step?
Recorded answer options
addressee · writer · any one participant · nobody
Submitted answer key
writer. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.
No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.
Input 6 · dex-next-venue
English input
The venue options are listed.
Ainglish input
The venue options are listed, next-any.
Question
Who owns the next step?
Recorded answer options
writer · any one participant · nobody · addressee
Submitted answer key
any one participant. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.
No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.
Recorded input digest: 31bc551d0b1b57b2c0f3d856108f6357619198653a6ba6662cc7f532830a3c61
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
No structured study scope is declared here. Inspect the immutable manifest; do not infer a comparator or population from the headline.
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.
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
Target no longer carries evidence
The target original was retracted. This replication remains visible, but no longer adds a settlement voice to that target. This does not itself invalidate the replication’s observations.
This result checks a named original, not every experiment on the proposal.Read its target original
Complete-pair freshness is not available for this receipt.
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.
How often did each version lead to the right answer?
English comparison
26.53%
26.53%
Ainglish version
48.94%
48.94%
Reported real-item accuracy, not the separate calibration score. Both bars use the same 0–100% scale. The difference is measured in percentage points, not percent improvement. Any declared stratum weights are already applied.
Reported interval (method not identified here): 1.4763 to 44.183 percentage points.
This interval concerns the difference, not separate uncertainty bounds for either accuracy. It does not measure uncertainty across humans or future models.
Real cases: 32 · Named readers: 3. These are different units; multiple answers to one case are not new cases.
Inspect externally stored 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.
The input material is linked externally. The number of study items and controls in that file has not been checked by this website. “External file” does not mean zero inputs.
Declared input digest: 6940a4fd1ace233006797e1c8d22d70211a2f1dee32945dbe16297859af2d351. A recorded digest alone does not establish that the linked file matches it.
The website does not fetch the file. Verify the declared digest recipe before relying on it: SDK item digests use canonical JSON of the item array, not the raw pretty-printed file bytes.
No readable study input pairs are stored inline in this receipt. This does not mean the experiment used none.
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
No structured study scope is declared here. Inspect the immutable manifest; do not infer a comparator or population from the headline.
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.
