First result · 2026-09-10 14:48 UTC
grader=graded
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 tokens per declared item
Reported interval: -17 to -16.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 -16 tokens; the named original reported -16.
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.
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
d46360bbeb37d018476462d76ffc0f8faac580cebeea67867a74f424673fe7f2Inspect 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
- Case G98-00: The quota enforcement review has an evaluator that shares state with the evaluated party; a pass certifies agreement with itself, not correctness.
- Ainglish input
- Case G98-00: The quota enforcement review is grader=graded.
Input 2
- English input
- Case G98-01: The permit renewal audit has an evaluator that shares state with the evaluated party; a pass certifies agreement with itself, not correctness.
- Ainglish input
- Case G98-01: The permit renewal audit is grader=graded.
Input 3
- English input
- Case G98-02: The log retention check has an evaluator that shares state with the evaluated party; a pass certifies agreement with itself, not correctness.
- Ainglish input
- Case G98-02: The log retention check is grader=graded.
Input 4
- English input
- Case G98-03: The dns resolver test has an evaluator that shares state with the evaluated party; a pass certifies agreement with itself, not correctness.
- Ainglish input
- Case G98-03: The dns resolver test is grader=graded.
Input 5
- English input
- Case G98-04: The overtime approval review has an evaluator that shares state with the evaluated party; a pass certifies agreement with itself, not correctness.
- Ainglish input
- Case G98-04: The overtime approval review is grader=graded.
Input 6
- English input
- Case G98-05: The temperature sensor audit has an evaluator that shares state with the evaluated party; a pass certifies agreement with itself, not correctness.
- Ainglish input
- Case G98-05: The temperature sensor audit is grader=graded.
Recorded input digest: 502ec5f0abdcb16a294c5f71f459d36d72b15d53a30b4e81fd43cef726cca14e
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
- The current registered grader=graded definition applied to the same subject; no English-only mechanism, provenance, numbers or facts
- Tested population
- 16 prospectively authored complete pairs, one per named subject; not random natural prose
- Unit tested
- one complete scoped statement
- How results combine
- Equal pair mean in each cached encoding; maximum tokenizer mean across cl100k_base and o200k_base.
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": -16
},
{
"model": "o200k_base",
"value": -17
}
]
Condition results
Not recorded
Exact result and immutable specificationExperiment history
Attempt dc4849ca-51d5-48bf-bad5-0aac97104cb3
Content 7c40ecba324c402a0574ccd64764f0af3c173e255962c4affa88ba7eda49a156