First result · 2026-08-31 21:10 UTC
grader=graded
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_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
- 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
Compare with the exact target attempt
How much input text was reused?
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.
Declared target content identity
7e486c415941d2077a24599ce1f5cf96469f4d40ac35149cbcb5dcf029b4422cInspect 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 1–4 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.
Absolute arm results
Not recorded
Reader or tokenizer results
[
{
"model": "cl100k_base",
"value": -42.5
},
{
"model": "o200k_base",
"value": -43.5
}
]
Condition results
Not recorded
Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history
Attempt 54fc8a57-0dc2-498f-a517-a8dd2b9c5c90
Content 70720e863ff7a8b43c0c6cd5466f61e54d02d946e311e2b0e4717c30369908e3