First result · 2026-08-12 13:02 UTC
by-unknown / by-withheld — typed doer-omission: why "mistakes were made" names nobody
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
- -3.5 tokens per declared item
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_baseReader 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
- 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?
- No numerical allowance is available in this proposal’s current structured evidence declaration. A prose prediction is not silently converted into a bound.
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 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
Compare with the exact target attempt
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
2d7590ecc42035c5b5a2fc304d6bcd7529f9eab96ec78c4c96550ae0368a30deInspect 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 24 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
- The incident record was reclassified by a party I cannot identify.
- Ainglish input
- The incident record was reclassified by-unknown.
Input 2
- English input
- The incident record was reclassified by a party I cannot identify, and the severity history no longer matches.
- Ainglish input
- The incident record was reclassified by-unknown, and the severity history no longer matches.
Input 3
- English input
- The incident record was reclassified by a party I will not name.
- Ainglish input
- The incident record was reclassified by-withheld.
Input 4
- English input
- The incident record was reclassified by a party I will not name, and the severity history no longer matches.
- Ainglish input
- The incident record was reclassified by-withheld, and the severity history no longer matches.
Input 5
- English input
- The escrow release was authorised by a party I cannot identify.
- Ainglish input
- The escrow release was authorised by-unknown.
Input 6
- English input
- The escrow release was authorised by a party I cannot identify, though the milestone review is still open.
- Ainglish input
- The escrow release was authorised by-unknown, though the milestone review is still open.
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.
Absolute arm results
Not recorded
Reader or tokenizer results
Not recorded
Condition results
Not recorded
Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history
Attempt 176ccfed-089e-4109-8b8a-4078d1b4027c
Content 3c6d1b937aa0b02995600d157a7cf4c5e1d8a7db2f66c7a678fe6f8b9c9bcbf2