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?proposal-by(<P>) / decision-by(<A>) — say whether an option is offered or operatively chosen2026-08-21 17:59 UTCproposal-by(<P>) / decision-by(<A>) — say whether an option is offered or operatively chosen2026-09-03 11:11 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?13.89 percentage pointsReported interval: -3.7296 to 32.2141Not yet counting in evidence decisions0 percentage pointsReported interval: 0 to 0Counts in current evidence decisions
Compared with what?English comparison not recorded as a structured labelReader exposure not recorded as a structured labelComplete, careful EnglishReader exposure not recorded as a structured label
Independently settled?DisputedEligible replications disagree and this original does not hold a settlement majority.Disagrees with the named originalThis eligible row adds one disagreement. An adverse or null direction is a valid result and remains visible.

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 · Only recorded on one side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
[
    "complete-careful-english-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
First result
[
    "Dexagon-local-Qwen2.5-7B-Q4_K_M@q4_k_m",
    "Dexagon-local-Gemma3-12B-Q4_K_M@q4_k_m",
    "Dexagon-local-MistralSmall3.2-24B-Q4_K_M@q4_k_m"
]
Second result
[
    "spark-zen-13-minimal"
]
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 · 13.89 percentage points

First result · 2026-08-21 17:59 UTC

proposal-by(<P>) / decision-by(<A>) — say whether an option is offered or operatively chosen

Not yet counting in evidence decisions. This row remains available for assessment, but does not currently carry a counting evidence result.

What was measured
comprehension accuracy · comprehension_accuracy_delta
How does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?
Reported result
13.89 percentage points
Reported interval: -3.7296 to 32.2141.

The value is neutral or does not resolve the registered direction.

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
Dexagon-local-Qwen2.5-7B-Q4_K_M@q4_k_m, Dexagon-local-Gemma3-12B-Q4_K_M@q4_k_m, Dexagon-local-MistralSmall3.2-24B-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
Disputed

Eligible replications disagree and this original does not hold a settlement majority.

How often did each version lead to the right answer?

English comparison
59.72%
59.72%
Ainglish version
73.61%
73.61%

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): -3.7296 to 32.2141 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: 48 · 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.

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

Declared input digest: fa6b4886f8c2bf3d709fdc95e0c092bc0a742bfdc4d3d00e091f298a9a0eff58. 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": 0.59719999999999995310417943983338773250579833984375,
    "ainglish": 0.736099999999999976552089719916693866252899169921875,
    "chance": 0.200000000000000011102230246251565404236316680908203125
}

Reader or tokenizer results

[
    {
        "model": "Dexagon-local-Qwen2.5-7B-Q4_K_M",
        "value": 33.3299999999999982946974341757595539093017578125,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    },
    {
        "model": "Dexagon-local-Gemma3-12B-Q4_K_M",
        "value": -4.1699999999999999289457264239899814128875732421875,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    },
    {
        "model": "Dexagon-local-MistralSmall3.2-24B-Q4_K_M",
        "value": 12.5,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    }
]

Condition results

Not recorded

Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history

Attempt 619ed9d1-908b-45bc-ae0c-fb3114f14e0a
Content 085f8452fce60722ff100862b963f82a3c68720d718f7ee29d2aaa266a301947

Second result: full recordcomprehension accuracy · 0 percentage points

Second result · 2026-09-03 11:11 UTC

proposal-by(<P>) / decision-by(<A>) — say whether an option is offered or operatively chosen

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
0 percentage points
Reported interval: 0 to 0.

The value is neutral or does not resolve the registered direction.

English comparison
Complete, careful English

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

Complete careful-English expansion.

Reader exposure
Reader exposure not recorded as a structured label
Named instruments
spark-zen-13-minimal

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
Disagrees with the named original

This eligible row adds one disagreement. An adverse or null direction is a valid result and remains visible.

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 identity085f8452fce60722ff100862b963f82a3c68720d718f7ee29d2aaa266a301947

How often did each version lead to the right answer?

English comparison
100.00%
100.00%
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 item-bootstrap interval: 0 to 0 percentage points.

This interval concerns the difference, not separate uncertainty bounds for either accuracy. It does not measure uncertainty across humans or future models.

The reported accuracy is near a measurement boundary; read the resolution diagnostics before claiming a small effect.

Real cases: 8 · 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 8 readable, inline study items, in stored order—not a selection of successes. 6 control items are kept separate.

Each result has its own input pages. Positions across the two studies do not imply matched cases.

Input 7 · real2-pro-01

English input
Quay Warden holds the senior role named here. Quay Warden has put the option to dredge the silt berth forward for consideration. This identifies who offered it and asserts that the option exists, but asserts no operative selection, authorization, promise, or schedule. This sentence neither commands the reader nor grants permission.
Ainglish input
Quay Warden holds the senior role named here. proposal-by(quay warden): dredge the silt berth.
Question
Choose the three-part profile that follows from the message. Part 1: is the action only offered for consideration, operatively selected, invalid because the named source lacks standing, or impossible to determine? Part 2: may the record state that an existing choice has been made? Part 3: does this sentence itself command the reader or grant permission?
Recorded answer options
selected / yes / yes · cannot tell / cannot tell / cannot tell · offered / no / no · selected / yes / no · invalid source / no / no
Submitted answer key
offered / no / no. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.

Filed correctness against that key (up to 12 reader/arm cells). These flags are not the reader’s verbatim output.

  • spark-zen-13-minimal · English: matched the submitted key.

Input 8 · real2-pro-02

English input
Apiary Keeper holds the senior role named here. Apiary Keeper has put the option to requeen the north hive forward for consideration. This identifies who offered it and asserts that the option exists, but asserts no operative selection, authorization, promise, or schedule. This sentence neither commands the reader nor grants permission.
Ainglish input
Apiary Keeper holds the senior role named here. proposal-by(apiary keeper): requeen the north hive.
Question
Choose the three-part profile that follows from the message. Part 1: is the action only offered for consideration, operatively selected, invalid because the named source lacks standing, or impossible to determine? Part 2: may the record state that an existing choice has been made? Part 3: does this sentence itself command the reader or grant permission?
Recorded answer options
offered / no / no · selected / yes / no · invalid source / no / no · selected / yes / yes · cannot tell / cannot tell / cannot tell
Submitted answer key
offered / no / no. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.

Filed correctness against that key (up to 12 reader/arm cells). These flags are not the reader’s verbatim output.

  • spark-zen-13-minimal · Ainglish: matched the submitted key.

Input 9 · real2-pro-03

English input
Ferry Purser holds the senior role named here. Ferry Purser has put the option to audit the ticket rolls forward for consideration. This identifies who offered it and asserts that the option exists, but asserts no operative selection, authorization, promise, or schedule. This sentence neither commands the reader nor grants permission.
Ainglish input
Ferry Purser holds the senior role named here. proposal-by(ferry purser): audit the ticket rolls.
Question
Choose the three-part profile that follows from the message. Part 1: is the action only offered for consideration, operatively selected, invalid because the named source lacks standing, or impossible to determine? Part 2: may the record state that an existing choice has been made? Part 3: does this sentence itself command the reader or grant permission?
Recorded answer options
selected / yes / yes · cannot tell / cannot tell / cannot tell · offered / no / no · selected / yes / no · invalid source / no / no
Submitted answer key
offered / no / no. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.

Filed correctness against that key (up to 12 reader/arm cells). These flags are not the reader’s verbatim output.

  • spark-zen-13-minimal · Ainglish: matched the submitted key.

Input 10 · real2-pro-04

English input
Mill Miller holds the senior role named here. Mill Miller has put the option to dress the grindstones forward for consideration. This identifies who offered it and asserts that the option exists, but asserts no operative selection, authorization, promise, or schedule. This sentence neither commands the reader nor grants permission.
Ainglish input
Mill Miller holds the senior role named here. proposal-by(mill miller): dress the grindstones.
Question
Choose the three-part profile that follows from the message. Part 1: is the action only offered for consideration, operatively selected, invalid because the named source lacks standing, or impossible to determine? Part 2: may the record state that an existing choice has been made? Part 3: does this sentence itself command the reader or grant permission?
Recorded answer options
offered / no / no · selected / yes / no · invalid source / no / no · selected / yes / yes · cannot tell / cannot tell / cannot tell
Submitted answer key
offered / no / no. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.

Filed correctness against that key (up to 12 reader/arm cells). These flags are not the reader’s verbatim output.

  • spark-zen-13-minimal · English: matched the submitted key.

Input 11 · real2-pro-05

English input
Signal Box holds the senior role named here. Signal Box has put the option to relamp the gantry lights forward for consideration. This identifies who offered it and asserts that the option exists, but asserts no operative selection, authorization, promise, or schedule. This sentence neither commands the reader nor grants permission.
Ainglish input
Signal Box holds the senior role named here. proposal-by(signal box): relamp the gantry lights.
Question
Choose the three-part profile that follows from the message. Part 1: is the action only offered for consideration, operatively selected, invalid because the named source lacks standing, or impossible to determine? Part 2: may the record state that an existing choice has been made? Part 3: does this sentence itself command the reader or grant permission?
Recorded answer options
selected / yes / yes · cannot tell / cannot tell / cannot tell · offered / no / no · selected / yes / no · invalid source / no / no
Submitted answer key
offered / no / no. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.

Filed correctness against that key (up to 12 reader/arm cells). These flags are not the reader’s verbatim output.

  • spark-zen-13-minimal · English: matched the submitted key.

Input 12 · real2-pro-06

English input
Toll Clerk holds the senior role named here. Toll Clerk has put the option to reconcile the coin trays forward for consideration. This identifies who offered it and asserts that the option exists, but asserts no operative selection, authorization, promise, or schedule. This sentence neither commands the reader nor grants permission.
Ainglish input
Toll Clerk holds the senior role named here. proposal-by(toll clerk): reconcile the coin trays.
Question
Choose the three-part profile that follows from the message. Part 1: is the action only offered for consideration, operatively selected, invalid because the named source lacks standing, or impossible to determine? Part 2: may the record state that an existing choice has been made? Part 3: does this sentence itself command the reader or grant permission?
Recorded answer options
invalid source / no / no · selected / yes / yes · cannot tell / cannot tell / cannot tell · offered / no / no · selected / yes / no
Submitted answer key
offered / no / no. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.

Filed correctness against that key (up to 12 reader/arm cells). These flags are not the reader’s verbatim output.

  • spark-zen-13-minimal · English: matched the submitted key.

Recorded input digest: 3d6548e5d18b51f460ad1b991a4a253eb1acc0dd4c6214f40bab704962f74947

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": 1,
    "ainglish": 1,
    "chance": 0.200000000000000011102230246251565404236316680908203125
}

Reader or tokenizer results

[
    {
        "model": "spark-zen-13-minimal",
        "value": 0
    }
]

Condition results

Not recorded

Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history

Attempt 14bd1152-112e-47cd-8b8a-2545a3591006
Content 661e6e54c2ac0a2a40d48690b4b1534ba90e3c1f076778f4abc13602667edad6

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.