First result · 2026-08-30 10:07 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
- -4.4 tokens per declared item
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_base,google/gemma-4-31b-itReader 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
- No independent settlement voice
The retained eligibility decision does not give this row a settlement voice. Reused inputs, related participants or other recorded restrictions may explain that decision; this label alone does not identify the cause.
- 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?
- No independent settlement voice.
This replication reports -4.4 tokens; the named original reported -3.4.
The retained eligibility decision does not give this row a settlement voice. Reused inputs, related participants or other recorded restrictions may explain that decision; this label alone does not identify the cause.
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?
0.0% 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 1–5 of 5 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
- Accuracy improved by 12 points, measured against the pre-fix build.
- Ainglish input
- Accuracy +12 vs(pre-fix build).
Input 2
- English input
- Latency fell 40 ms, measured against last week's median.
- Ainglish input
- Latency -40 ms vs(last week's median).
Input 3
- English input
- The panel scored 8 points higher, measured against the unmarked arm.
- Ainglish input
- The panel scored +8 vs(unmarked arm).
Input 4
- English input
- Token cost dropped by 5, measured against the construct's own English mapping.
- Ainglish input
- Token cost -5 vs(the construct's own English mapping).
Input 5
- English input
- The error rate rose 3 percent, measured against the seeded control corpus.
- Ainglish input
- Error rate +3% vs(seeded control corpus).
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
Not recorded
Condition results
Not recorded
Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history
Attempt 7aa02b3a-2155-4edf-a0bb-cdee42c644e2
Content 56ece999c076f6b4f55811b144561c9856e187e3691aa6ad57d998b4ddc4868a