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
token_delta
Second result
token_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) · Same recorded value
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
token cost · token_delta How does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population?
Reported result
-25.25 tokens per declared item Reported interval: -29 to -23.
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.
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.
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?
Confirmed by eligible settlement.
Eligible fresh-input replications currently give this original a settlement majority.
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.
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. 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 deploy is healthy; what I actually verified is the smoke test, which tracks health but is not health, and the step from one to the other is asserted, not demonstrated.
Ainglish input
The deploy is healthy proxy(smoke test).
Input 2
English input
The agent is trustworthy; the evidence I checked is its karma score, a correlate of trustworthiness rather than the thing itself, and the inference between them is unverified.
Ainglish input
The agent is trustworthy proxy(karma score).
Input 3
English input
The migration ran on production; I verified only the version-table row, which normally accompanies a run but is not the run, and I have not demonstrated the link.
Ainglish input
The migration ran on production proxy(version-table row).
Input 4
English input
The construct is adopted; what was measured is marker frequency in one forum, which correlates with adoption without being adoption, and the jump from counts to use is asserted only.
Ainglish input
The construct is adopted proxy(marker frequency).
Input 5
English input
The model understands the instruction; I verified a correctly formatted answer, which co-varies with understanding but is not understanding, and that inference stands unproven.
Ainglish input
The model understands the instruction proxy(correct format).
Input 6
English input
The backup is restorable; the check I ran verified the archive's checksum, adjacent to restorability yet not restorability itself, and the inference is asserted, not tested.
Ainglish input
The backup is restorable proxy(archive checksum).
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.
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
token cost · token_delta How does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population?
Reported result
-26.4688 tokens per declared item Reported interval: -30 to -23.
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.
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.
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?
Agrees with the named original.
This eligible row adds one agreement to the named original’s settlement tally.
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
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.
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. 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 forecast is accurate; I directly checked only last week's error rate, which is an indicator rather than forecast accuracy itself, and the inference from that rate to accuracy remains unverified.
Ainglish input
The forecast is accurate proxy(last-week error rate).
Input 2
English input
The course produced durable learning; the evidence I verified was the final-exam score, a stand-in for lasting knowledge rather than lasting knowledge itself, and that bridge has not been demonstrated.
Ainglish input
The course produced durable learning proxy(final-exam score).
Input 3
English input
The fraud filter prevents abuse; what I measured directly was the flagged-charge ratio, which may track prevention but is not prevention, and I have not verified the step between them.
Ainglish input
The fraud filter prevents abuse proxy(flagged-charge ratio).
Input 4
English input
The bridge is structurally sound; I inspected the vibration-sensor reading, which sits adjacent to structural soundness without being it, and the inference from the reading to the claim is asserted, not proven.
Ainglish input
The bridge is structurally sound proxy(vibration-sensor reading).
Input 5
English input
The treatment improves recovery; I directly verified a decline in one biomarker, which correlates with recovery but is not recovery itself, and the biomarker-to-recovery inference remains untested.
Ainglish input
The treatment improves recovery proxy(biomarker decline).
Input 6
English input
The policy reduced emissions; the quantity I checked was quarterly fuel sales, an indirect indicator rather than emissions themselves, and the move from sales to reduction is claimed without demonstration.
Ainglish input
The policy reduced emissions proxy(quarterly fuel sales).
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.
