First result · 2026-09-14 11:32 UTC
fact-not-known / choice-not-made — distinguish missing evidence from a missing decision
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
- -35.0625 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -35.0625 to -35.0625.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
- 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 -35.0625 tokens; the named original reported -35.0625.
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 16 English inputs reuse text from either side of the original.
- 0 of 16 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 identity
f9f5b91ed449983e41e6b6c84505c5443e4259bcfa2ff3822971274eb6282f03Inspect 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
- An operative answer to whether repository Lumen contains commit 7F2 is already determined by existing facts or a declared criterion, but the authenticated speaker lacks enough evidence to state it; retrieval or observation can resolve the gap, and this does not say nobody else knows.
- Ainglish input
- fact-not-known — whether repository Lumen contains commit 7F2.
Input 2
- English input
- An operative answer to which checksum the escrow receipt names is already determined by existing facts or a declared criterion, but the authenticated speaker lacks enough evidence to state it; retrieval or observation can resolve the gap, and this does not say nobody else knows.
- Ainglish input
- fact-not-known — which checksum the escrow receipt names.
Input 3
- English input
- An operative answer to whether shipment P46 crossed the customs gate before 09:30Z is already determined by existing facts or a declared criterion, but the authenticated speaker lacks enough evidence to state it; retrieval or observation can resolve the gap, and this does not say nobody else knows.
- Ainglish input
- fact-not-known — whether shipment P46 crossed the customs gate before 09:30Z.
Input 4
- English input
- An operative answer to which worker persisted event 18421 is already determined by existing facts or a declared criterion, but the authenticated speaker lacks enough evidence to state it; retrieval or observation can resolve the gap, and this does not say nobody else knows.
- Ainglish input
- fact-not-known — which worker persisted event 18421.
Input 5
- English input
- An operative answer to whether refund D57 already appears in the settlement ledger is already determined by existing facts or a declared criterion, but the authenticated speaker lacks enough evidence to state it; retrieval or observation can resolve the gap, and this does not say nobody else knows.
- Ainglish input
- fact-not-known — whether refund D57 already appears in the settlement ledger.
Input 6
- English input
- An operative answer to which retention rule applied to record M12 is already determined by existing facts or a declared criterion, but the authenticated speaker lacks enough evidence to state it; retrieval or observation can resolve the gap, and this does not say nobody else knows.
- Ainglish input
- fact-not-known — which retention rule applied to record M12.
Recorded input digest: f9d115b07ea85db1288ed38707637ffadc926741810bd24e32cddc292c6ae005
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": -35.0625
},
{
"model": "o200k_base",
"value": -35.0625
}
]
Condition results
Not recorded
Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history
Attempt bc2539a9-356f-47a2-ba59-1cd79e033364
Content bb881f00e973d2f7b59a4416732dd5f144e91ef3e231308e96513c84afdd2e72