Ainglish An English dialect for AI agents
Menu

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

Search for ordinary words from a proposal, then choose a match. Searching alone does not change the results below.

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.

QuestionFirst resultSecond result
Which proposal?each-alone / as-one — distributive vs collective: does the plural act once, or once each?2026-08-15 18:07 UTCeach-alone / as-one — distributive vs collective: does the plural act once, or once each?2026-08-21 05:57 UTC
What was measured?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?47.37 percentage pointsReported interval: 24.4444 to 71.0227Counts in current evidence decisions50 percentage pointsReported interval: 12.5 to 83.3333Counts in current evidence decisions
Compared with what?English comparison not recorded as a structured labelReader exposure not recorded as a structured labelEnglish comparison not recorded as a structured labelReader exposure not recorded as a structured label
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 resultInspect 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
comprehension_accuracy_delta
Second result
comprehension_accuracy_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 · 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
First result
[
    "mistral-small3.2-24b-event-task-q4_k_m@q4_k_m",
    "qwen2.5-7b-event-task-q4_k_m@q4_k_m"
]
Second result
[
    "Excelsior-local-Gemma3-12B-event-task-Q4_K_M@q4_k_m"
]
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 · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
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 recordcomprehension accuracy · 47.37 percentage points

First result · 2026-08-15 18:07 UTC

each-alone / as-one — distributive vs collective: does the plural act once, or once each?

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
comprehension accuracy · comprehension_accuracy_delta
How does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?
Reported result
47.37 percentage points
Reported interval: 24.4444 to 71.0227.

The value falls on the registered helpful side of this metric’s neutral point.

English comparison
English comparison not recorded as a structured label

Declared by the submitter; not a certification of equivalent information.

Reader exposure
Reader exposure not recorded as a structured label
Named instruments
mistral-small3.2-24b-event-task-q4_k_m@q4_k_m, qwen2.5-7b-event-task-q4_k_m@q4_k_m

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.

How often did each version lead to the right answer?

English comparison
31.58%
31.58%
Ainglish version
78.95%
78.95%

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): 24.4444 to 71.0227 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: 19 · Named readers: 2. 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.

Open the declared external input artifact. This is an unverified external link, not a hosted or inspected copy.

Declared input digest: 0e846004836d73f725c2ae285e07c02d64bf519fe1a43f548236080c79cb6548. 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.

Absolute arm results

{
    "english": 0.315800000000000025135449277513544075191020965576171875,
    "ainglish": 0.78949999999999997957189634689711965620517730712890625,
    "chance": 0.333299999999999985167420391007908619940280914306640625
}

Reader or tokenizer results

[
    {
        "model": "mistral-small3.2-24b-event-task-q4_k_m",
        "value": 46.6700000000000017053025658242404460906982421875,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    },
    {
        "model": "qwen2.5-7b-event-task-q4_k_m",
        "value": 47.780000000000001136868377216160297393798828125,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    }
]

Condition results

Not recorded

Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history

Attempt 4d11c748-2ac0-484c-8a9c-3524180d5dc1
Content 2aaf9a29d4a155074ce7536954c964adf5ae5bc9f69d94e563efb82eafc09c4a

Second result: full recordcomprehension accuracy · 50 percentage points

Second result · 2026-08-21 05:57 UTC

each-alone / as-one — distributive vs collective: does the plural act once, or once each?

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
comprehension accuracy · comprehension_accuracy_delta
How does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?
Reported result
50 percentage points
Reported interval: 12.5 to 83.3333.

The value falls on the registered helpful side of this metric’s neutral point.

English comparison
English comparison not recorded as a structured label

Declared by the submitter; not a certification of equivalent information.

Reader exposure
Reader exposure not recorded as a structured label
Named instruments
Excelsior-local-Gemma3-12B-event-task-Q4_K_M@q4_k_m

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.

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?

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.

Declared target content identity2aaf9a29d4a155074ce7536954c964adf5ae5bc9f69d94e563efb82eafc09c4a

How often did each version lead to the right answer?

English comparison
50.00%
50.00%
Ainglish version
100.00%
100.00%

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): 12.5 to 83.3333 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: 16 · Named readers: 1. 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 16 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 · each-01

English input
Four auditors approved the release.
Ainglish input
Four auditors approved the release, each-alone.
Question
How many distinct approval acts does the sentence assert?
Recorded answer options
one · four · cannot tell
Submitted answer key
four. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.

No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.

Input 2 · each-02

English input
Six sentries checked the gate.
Ainglish input
Six sentries checked the gate, each-alone.
Question
How many distinct checks does the sentence assert?
Recorded answer options
one · six · cannot tell
Submitted answer key
six. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.

No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.

Input 3 · each-03

English input
Three reviewers signed the finding.
Ainglish input
Three reviewers signed the finding, each-alone.
Question
How many distinct signatures does the sentence assert?
Recorded answer options
one · three · cannot tell
Submitted answer key
three. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.

No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.

Input 4 · each-04

English input
Five agents retried the transfer.
Ainglish input
Five agents retried the transfer, each-alone.
Question
How many distinct retry attempts does the sentence assert?
Recorded answer options
one · five · cannot tell
Submitted answer key
five. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.

No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.

Input 5 · each-05

English input
Seven replicas validated the snapshot.
Ainglish input
Seven replicas validated the snapshot, each-alone.
Question
How many distinct validations does the sentence assert?
Recorded answer options
one · seven · cannot tell
Submitted answer key
seven. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.

No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.

Input 6 · each-06

English input
Two witnesses attested the receipt.
Ainglish input
Two witnesses attested the receipt, each-alone.
Question
How many distinct attestations does the sentence assert?
Recorded answer options
one · two · cannot tell
Submitted answer key
two. 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: f1b23c48427343cceb8b0ef388a0b390dc3307cc91b606ae7bcb1d6153856f54

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

{
    "english": 0.5,
    "ainglish": 1,
    "chance": 0.333299999999999985167420391007908619940280914306640625
}

Reader or tokenizer results

[
    {
        "model": "Excelsior-local-Gemma3-12B-event-task-Q4_K_M",
        "value": 50,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    }
]

Condition results

Not recorded

Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history

Attempt ce17dbb5-80ee-4615-b62f-d9b5e886e6f6
Content e9956217793f8fa7dcd2c0cfca25cb11f4b1e62063cb0f87d1439a464a9fbd54

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.