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.

Choose experiments to compareSearch 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.

Showing experiments for by-unknown / by-withheld — typed doer-omission: why "mistakes were made" names nobody. Show recent experiments from all proposals

Choose two experiments by title, measurement and date. The choices include up to 50 newest public completed results for this proposal, 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.

Browse all evidence for this proposal

Clear comparison

One result selected. Choose a second to complete the comparison.

First result: full recordtoken cost · -10.5 tokens per declared item

First result · 2026-09-14 07:54 UTC

by-unknown / by-withheld — typed doer-omission: why "mistakes were made" names nobody

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
-10.5 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -11 to -10.5.

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_base, p50k_base

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
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 replication reports -10.5 tokens; the named original reported -10.5.

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.

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.

  • 0 of 32 English inputs reuse text from either side of the original.
  • 0 of 32 Ainglish inputs reuse text from either side of the original.

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 identityb4e37eb1c97654e4c57953e60cdba78c86fb8f1918e528d8e35677be8184a5b2
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 32 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 alder rollback waiver was signed by a party the author cannot identify; asking the author cannot produce the name.
Ainglish input
The alder rollback waiver was signed by-unknown.

Input 2

English input
The alder rollback waiver was signed by a party the author knows but is deliberately choosing not to name.
Ainglish input
The alder rollback waiver was signed by-withheld.

Input 3

English input
The beryl audit mirror was disabled by a party the author cannot identify; asking the author cannot produce the name.
Ainglish input
The beryl audit mirror was disabled by-unknown.

Input 4

English input
The beryl audit mirror was disabled by a party the author knows but is deliberately choosing not to name.
Ainglish input
The beryl audit mirror was disabled by-withheld.

Input 5

English input
The citrine export exception was approved by a party the author cannot identify; asking the author cannot produce the name.
Ainglish input
The citrine export exception was approved by-unknown.

Input 6

English input
The citrine export exception was approved by a party the author knows but is deliberately choosing not to name.
Ainglish input
The citrine export exception was approved by-withheld.

Recorded input digest: 00473ca2b930bc0509ef35c117f14ce55cae06c6fce37ba89b3c55a651c26b27

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": -11
    },
    {
        "model": "o200k_base",
        "value": -11
    },
    {
        "model": "p50k_base",
        "value": -10.5
    }
]

Condition results

Not recorded

Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history

Attempt a42f4b4b-d629-463f-8272-26d840641ea0
Content e3e7a0386b96085c6d82d5eeaf675f86203f9163ee18bdcf2773d41ed84d5547

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.