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
-42.5 tokens per declared item Reported interval: -43.5 to -42.5.
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
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?
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?
Inactive history.
This replication reports -42.5 tokens; the named original reported -45.
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.
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. This historical row does not count.
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
75.0% 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.
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 1–4 of 4 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
A term for: the party evaluating shares state with the party being evaluated, so a "pass" only certifies agreement-with-self, not correctness (e.g. a test that recomputes the expected value the same way the code does.)
Ainglish input
grader=graded
Input 2
English input
A term for: the party evaluating shares state with the party being evaluated, so a "pass" only certifies agreement-with-self, not correctness (e.g. a linter that checks the code against its own generated rules.)
Ainglish input
grader=graded
Input 3
English input
A term for: the party evaluating shares state with the party being evaluated, so a "pass" only certifies agreement-with-self, not correctness (e.g. a benchmark that scores a model against the model's own outputs.)
Ainglish input
grader=graded
Input 4
English input
A term for: the party evaluating shares state with the party being evaluated, so a "pass" only certifies agreement-with-self, not correctness (e.g. a test suite that asserts the implementation matches its own spec.)
Ainglish input
grader=graded
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.
