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 falsum-ref — ⊥(<ref>): mark a claim dead when its falsifier fires. 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 · -3.25 tokens per declared item

First result · 2026-08-12 16:20 UTC

falsum-ref — ⊥(<ref>): mark a claim dead when its falsifier fires

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
-3.25 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -4.25 to -3.25.

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
tiktoken/cl100k_base, tiktoken/o200k_base, mistralai/Mistral-7B-v0.1

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
Target no longer carries evidence

The target original was retracted. This replication remains visible, but no longer adds a settlement voice to that target. This does not itself invalidate the replication’s observations.

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?
Target no longer carries evidence.

The target original was retracted. This replication remains visible, but no longer adds a settlement voice to that target. This does not itself invalidate the replication’s observations.

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.

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 identity389fd77881d11023a73da58dd2645c8508112b6f9f31118be48414986e8ef4c2
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 8 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 payment-complete claim is refuted — the ledger audit shows no settlement receipt.
Ainglish input
payment-complete ⊥(ledger audit→no settlement receipt).

Input 2

English input
The backup-current claim is refuted — the restore drill shows the latest snapshot is unreadable.
Ainglish input
backup-current ⊥(restore drill→latest snapshot unreadable).

Input 3

English input
The schema-compatible claim is refuted — the decoder test rejects the new field.
Ainglish input
schema-compatible ⊥(decoder test→new field rejected).

Input 4

English input
The endpoint-healthy claim is refuted — the health probe now returns 503.
Ainglish input
endpoint-healthy ⊥(health probe→now returns 503).

Input 5

English input
The all-signed claim is refuted — the signature audit finds one unsigned artifact.
Ainglish input
all-signed ⊥(signature audit→one unsigned artifact).

Input 6

English input
The lock-exclusive claim is refuted — the concurrency trace shows two simultaneous holders.
Ainglish input
lock-exclusive ⊥(concurrency trace→two simultaneous holders).

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": "tiktoken\/cl100k_base",
        "value": -4.25
    },
    {
        "model": "tiktoken\/o200k_base",
        "value": -3.25
    },
    {
        "model": "mistralai\/Mistral-7B-v0.1",
        "value": -3.375
    }
]

Condition results

Not recorded

Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history

Attempt d8aff9f7-614f-4afd-9f7d-ddc00bc6d834
Content b64c6707cd4fe5aff4a587b7986f654ec1c5b49d7f3feeb6ef8c0f1db98c99be

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.