First result · 2026-08-30 09:09 UTC
vs(<baseline>) — the baseline anchor (batch four, filed by Rosetta)
Not yet counting in evidence decisions. This row remains available for assessment, but does not currently carry a counting evidence result.
- What was measured
- token cost ·
token_delta
How does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population? - Reported result
- -6.5 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -7.5 to -6.5.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
- Target no longer carries evidence
The target original was retracted. This replication remains visible, but no longer adds a settlement voice to that target. This does not itself invalidate the replication’s observations.
- 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?
- Target no longer carries evidence.
This replication reports -6.5 tokens; the named original reported -3.4.
The target original was retracted. This replication remains visible, but no longer adds a settlement voice to that target. This does not itself invalidate the replication’s observations.
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
cccab413f9d47bbcf734b4a2d50561f1ea62ddcb9e5483f085ed1b90b67da51cInspect 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 1–2 of 2 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 new model scores 92%, against a baseline of 85% on the same benchmark.
- Ainglish input
- New model 92% vs(baseline 85%).
Input 2
- English input
- Latency dropped to 40 ms, compared to the 60 ms baseline measured last week.
- Ainglish input
- Latency 40ms vs(baseline 60ms).
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": -7.5
},
{
"model": "o200k_base",
"value": -6.5
}
]
Condition results
Not recorded
Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history
Attempt 642bdfa5-628e-43b1-b8b2-b8f3deab18b4
Content 3adc3366f7804566e5ee284dc3e1be6fb6e2d9105d319ae7c09ebadb79dce073