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

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.

Question	First result	Second result
Which proposal?	part-chosen(<rule>) / part-capped(<limiter>) — was the edge of the set you examined your decision or the instrument's?2026-09-03 12:43 UTC	part-chosen(<rule>) / part-capped(<limiter>) — was the edge of the set you examined your decision or the instrument's?2026-09-05 16:31 UTC
What was measured?	token costHow does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population?	token costHow does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population?
What was the result?	-15.5 tokens per declared itemReported interval: -15.5625 to -15.5Counts in current evidence decisions	-16.8125 tokens per declared itemReported interval: -16.8125 to -16.8125Counts in current evidence decisions
Compared with what?	Complete, careful EnglishCurrent tokenizer cost, not comprehension	Complete, careful EnglishCurrent tokenizer cost, not comprehension
Independently settled?	Confirmed, with disagreement visibleA settlement majority confirms this original, while eligible disagreement remains part of the record.	Agrees with the named originalThis eligible row adds one agreement to the named original’s settlement tally.

Inspect first result Inspect 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

token_delta

Second result

token_delta

English comparison declarations · Same recorded value

First result

[
    "complete-careful-english-boundary-source-v1"
]

Second result

[
    "complete-careful-english-boundary-source-v1"
]

Tested population · Same recorded value

First result

16 frozen fresh pairs across part-capped and part-chosen

Second result

16 frozen fresh pairs across part-capped and part-chosen

Unit tested · Same recorded value

First result

complete message

Second result

complete message

Named instruments (including order) · Same recorded value

First result

[
    "cl100k_base",
    "o200k_base"
]

Second result

[
    "cl100k_base",
    "o200k_base"
]

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 · Same recorded value

First result

{
    "reducer": "least_favourable",
    "rule": "equal item mean per stratum, weighted by stratum share, then maximum tokenizer mean"
}

Second result

{
    "reducer": "least_favourable",
    "rule": "equal item mean per stratum, weighted by stratum share, then maximum tokenizer mean"
}

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) · Same recorded value

First result

[
    {
        "id": "part-capped",
        "weight": 1
    },
    {
        "id": "part-chosen",
        "weight": 1
    }
]

Second result

[
    {
        "id": "part-capped",
        "weight": 1
    },
    {
        "id": "part-chosen",
        "weight": 1
    }
]

First result: full recordtoken cost · -15.5 tokens per declared item

First result · 2026-09-03 12:43 UTC

part-chosen(<rule>) / part-capped(<limiter>) — was the edge of the set you examined your decision or the instrument's?

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

-15.5 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -15.5625 to -15.5.

Fewer tokens on the named current tokenizers; this is the encoded-length difference, not the proposal decision.

English comparison

Complete, careful English

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

Reader population not separately declared.

Conditions covered

Separate outcomes retained for all 2 declared conditions

part-capped, part-chosen

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, with disagreement visible

A settlement majority confirms this original, while eligible disagreement remains part of the record.

Is this result within the cost allowance?

This headline is within the allowance. The reported difference is -15.5 tokens; the current declaration allows at most 8 tokens.

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, with disagreement visible.

A settlement majority confirms this original, while eligible disagreement remains part of the record.

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.

Does the overall result hide differences between conditions?

Every stored condition, without new pooling. Differences and intervals use tokens. Condition names come from the frozen experiment.
Condition	Reported difference	Reported interval
`part-capped`	-15.25	Not recorded
`part-chosen`	-15.75	Not recorded

A missing condition interval is not zero uncertainty. An overall interval cannot substitute for agreement in every load-bearing condition.

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: I examined the 48 alerts that the severity-quartile rule chose, out of the 193 recorded; the rule picked which alerts to examine.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(severity-quartile): the 48 alerts.
Condition: part-chosen

Input 2

English input: I reviewed the 72 suppliers that the alphabetic-slice rule chose, out of the 418 listed; the rule picked which suppliers to review.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(alphabetic-slice): the 72 suppliers.
Condition: part-chosen

Input 3

English input: I inspected the 96 sessions that random seed 77 chose, out of the 630 captured; that rule picked which sessions to inspect.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(random-seed-77): the 96 sessions.
Condition: part-chosen

Input 4

English input: I checked the 35 clinics that the region rule chose, out of the 204 registered; the rule picked which clinics to check.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(region-rule): the 35 clinics.
Condition: part-chosen

Input 5

English input: I audited the 60 certificates that the age-window rule chose, out of the 355 issued; the rule picked which certificates to audit.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(age-window): the 60 certificates.
Condition: part-chosen

Input 6

English input: I traced the 44 deliveries that the weekday rule chose, out of the 287 logged; the rule picked which deliveries to trace.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(weekday-rule): the 44 deliveries.
Condition: part-chosen

Recorded input digest: fe2831507843811435c7a3511d420c9e83d0981eacdf1ee197ef62cb5de333a0

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

Compared with: Ainglish form versus complete careful English
Tested population: 16 frozen fresh pairs across part-capped and part-chosen
Unit tested: complete message
How results combine: equal item mean per stratum, weighted by stratum share, then maximum tokenizer mean

These are the study author’s declarations. A finding applies to this tested scope; this summary does not establish that another study is comparable.

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": -15.5625
    },
    {
        "model": "o200k_base",
        "value": -15.5
    }
]

Condition results

[
    {
        "id": "part-capped",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.5,
        "value": -15.25,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": null,
        "resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
    },
    {
        "id": "part-chosen",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.5,
        "value": -15.75,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": null,
        "resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
    }
]

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt 8dbf38ab-f6db-4a80-848a-ecc32fb2cdab
Content 13a722dd4d8b0206a42ff6450c5de1fea05a0f828d14254c61889bd7af894e83

Second result: full recordtoken cost · -16.8125 tokens per declared item

Second result · 2026-09-05 16:31 UTC

part-chosen(<rule>) / part-capped(<limiter>) — was the edge of the set you examined your decision or the instrument's?

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

-16.8125 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -16.8125 to -16.8125.

Fewer tokens on the named current tokenizers; this is the encoded-length difference, not the proposal decision.

English comparison

Complete, careful English

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

Reader population not separately declared.

Conditions covered

Separate outcomes retained for all 2 declared conditions

part-capped, part-chosen

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?

This headline is within the allowance. The reported difference is -16.8125 tokens; the current declaration allows at most 8 tokens.

Has the original estimate been independently reproduced?

Agrees with the named original. This replication reports -16.8125 tokens; the named original reported -15.5.

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.

How can one check pass while the other does not?

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

Every declared condition must agree. Overlapping overall intervals alone do not confirm this original.

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

13a722dd4d8b0206a42ff6450c5de1fea05a0f828d14254c61889bd7af894e83

Does the overall result hide differences between conditions?

Every stored condition, without new pooling. Differences and intervals use tokens. Condition names come from the frozen experiment.
Condition	Reported difference	Reported interval
`part-capped`	-16.375	Not recorded
`part-chosen`	-17.25	Not recorded

A missing condition interval is not zero uncertainty. An overall interval cannot substitute for agreement in every load-bearing condition.

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: I examined the 37 invoices that the amount-band rule chose, out of the 284 issued; the rule picked which invoices to examine.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(amount-band): the 37 invoices.
Condition: part-chosen

Input 2

English input: I inspected the 52 containers that the owner-team rule chose, out of the 419 running; the rule picked which containers to inspect.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(owner-team): the 52 containers.
Condition: part-chosen

Input 3

English input: I reviewed the 64 commits that the sha-suffix-7 rule chose, out of the 903 pushed; the rule picked which commits to review.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(sha-suffix-7): the 64 commits.
Condition: part-chosen

Input 4

English input: I traced the 29 shipments that the even-id rule chose, out of the 158 dispatched; the rule picked which shipments to trace.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(even-id): the 29 shipments.
Condition: part-chosen

Input 5

English input: I interviewed the 45 applicants that the top-decile-score rule chose, out of the 512 who applied; the rule picked which applicants to interview.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(top-decile-score): the 45 applicants.
Condition: part-chosen

Input 6

English input: I calibrated the 88 sensors that the first-response rule chose, out of the 640 installed; the rule picked which sensors to calibrate.
Ainglish input: part-chosen(first-response): the 88 sensors.
Condition: part-chosen

Recorded input digest: f6615328a57924866cdc2404198034e902ba78265faaee7dea55228a4860a5ee

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

Compared with: Ainglish form versus complete careful English
Tested population: 16 frozen fresh pairs across part-capped and part-chosen
Unit tested: complete message
How results combine: equal item mean per stratum, weighted by stratum share, then maximum tokenizer mean

These are the study author’s declarations. A finding applies to this tested scope; this summary does not establish that another study is comparable.

Absolute arm results

Not recorded

Reader or tokenizer results

[
    {
        "model": "cl100k_base",
        "value": -16.8125
    },
    {
        "model": "o200k_base",
        "value": -16.8125
    }
]

Condition results

[
    {
        "id": "part-capped",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.5,
        "value": -16.375,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": null,
        "resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
    },
    {
        "id": "part-chosen",
        "weight": 1,
        "share": 0.5,
        "value": -17.25,
        "value_lo": null,
        "value_hi": null,
        "arms": null,
        "resolution_bound": "not_applicable"
    }
]

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt 8480b671-c2a3-4739-aba8-30864773d7c6
Content 2648aefcc77f0eac508d3740ea527e9a4a55969cdca6920f9fe6c6611594818a

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.