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?	verdict-fail / no-verdict — did 'the check failed' judge the target, or fail to judge it?2026-09-03 09:49 UTC	verdict-fail / no-verdict — did 'the check failed' judge the target, or fail to judge it?2026-09-04 14:24 UTC
What was measured?	comprehension accuracyHow does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?	comprehension accuracyHow does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?
What was the result?	0 percentage pointsReported interval: 0 to 0Counts in current evidence decisions	0 percentage pointsReported interval: 0 to 0Counts in current evidence decisions
Compared with what?	Complete, careful EnglishReader exposure not recorded as a structured label	Complete, careful EnglishReader exposure not recorded as a structured label
Independently settled?	Confirmed by eligible settlementEligible fresh-input replications currently give this original a settlement majority.	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

comprehension_accuracy_delta

Second result

comprehension_accuracy_delta

English comparison declarations · Same recorded value

First result

[
    "complete-careful-english-v1"
]

Second result

[
    "complete-careful-english-v1"
]

Tested population · Not recorded on either side

First result

Not recorded in this structured field

Second result

Not recorded in this structured field

Unit tested · Not recorded on either side

First result

Not recorded in this structured field

Second result

Not recorded in this structured field

Named instruments (including order) · Recorded values differ

First result

[
    "nemotron-3-ultra-free@provider-opaque"
]

Second result

[
    "mistral-small3.2-24b-opaque-choice-q4_k_m@q4_k_m",
    "gemma3-12b-opaque-choice-q4_k_m@q4_k_m"
]

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 · Not recorded on either side

First result

Not recorded in this structured field

Second result

Not recorded in this structured field

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) · Not recorded on either side

First result

Not recorded in this structured field

Second result

Not recorded in this structured field

First result: full recordcomprehension accuracy · 0 percentage points

First result · 2026-09-03 09:49 UTC

verdict-fail / no-verdict — did 'the check failed' judge the target, or fail to judge it?

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

comprehension accuracy · comprehension_accuracy_delta
How does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?

Reported result

0 percentage points
Reported interval: 0 to 0.

The value is neutral or does not resolve the registered direction.

English comparison

Complete, careful English

Declared by the submitter; not a certification of equivalent information.

The proposal complete careful English mapping.

Reader exposure

Reader exposure not recorded as a structured label

Named instruments

nemotron-3-ultra-free@provider-opaque

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

Confirmed by eligible settlement

Eligible fresh-input replications currently give this original a settlement majority.

How often did each version lead to the right answer?

English comparison: 100.00%; 100.00%
Ainglish version: 100.00%; 100.00%

Reported real-item accuracy, not the separate calibration score. Both bars use the same 0–100% scale. The difference is measured in percentage points, not percent improvement. Any declared stratum weights are already applied.

Reported interval (method not identified here): 0 to 0 percentage points.

This interval concerns the difference, not separate uncertainty bounds for either accuracy. It does not measure uncertainty across humans or future models.

The reported accuracy is near a measurement boundary; read the resolution diagnostics before claiming a small effect.

Real cases: not recorded in this summary · Named readers: 1. These are different units; multiple answers to one case are not new cases.

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 1–2 of 2 readable, inline study items, in stored order—not a selection of successes. 2 control items are kept separate.

Each result has its own input pages. Positions across the two studies do not imply matched cases.

Input 3 · `r1`

English input: The smoke suite failed — three assertions; rolling back.
Ainglish input: smoke suite: verdict-fail — three assertions; rolling back.
Question: Did the test judge the target defective, or did the test itself fail to run?
Recorded answer options: target defective · test failed to run · cannot tell
Submitted answer key: target defective. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.

No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.

Input 4 · `r2`

English input: The smoke suite failed — runner timed out at 600s; not rolling back, re-running.
Ainglish input: smoke suite: no-verdict — runner timed out at 600s; not rolling back, re-running.
Question: Did the test judge the target defective, or did the test itself fail to run?
Recorded answer options: target defective · test failed to run · cannot tell
Submitted answer key: test failed to run. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.

No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.

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

{
    "english": 1,
    "ainglish": 1,
    "chance": 0.333333333333333314829616256247390992939472198486328125
}

Reader or tokenizer results

[
    {
        "model": "nemotron-3-ultra-free",
        "value": 0,
        "precision": "provider-opaque"
    }
]

Condition results

Not recorded

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt e863c186-bfdd-433f-a09a-c570e2b231f8
Content f68f899dd4a737c36733f3d9aaac2a9558f6727ed0c920280ad23974c7d721ed

Second result: full recordcomprehension accuracy · 0 percentage points

Second result · 2026-09-04 14:24 UTC

verdict-fail / no-verdict — did 'the check failed' judge the target, or fail to judge it?

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: comprehension accuracy · comprehension_accuracy_delta
How does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?
Reported result: 0 percentage points
Reported interval: 0 to 0.
The value is neutral or does not resolve the registered direction.
English comparison: Complete, careful English
Declared by the submitter; not a certification of equivalent information.
Reader exposure: Reader exposure not recorded as a structured label
Named instruments: mistral-small3.2-24b-opaque-choice-q4_k_m@q4_k_m, gemma3-12b-opaque-choice-q4_k_m@q4_k_m
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.

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?

Complete-pair freshness is not available for this receipt.

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

f68f899dd4a737c36733f3d9aaac2a9558f6727ed0c920280ad23974c7d721ed

How often did each version lead to the right answer?

English comparison: 100.00%; 100.00%
Ainglish version: 100.00%; 100.00%

Reported item-bootstrap interval: 0 to 0 percentage points.

This interval concerns the difference, not separate uncertainty bounds for either accuracy. It does not measure uncertainty across humans or future models.

The reported accuracy is near a measurement boundary; read the resolution diagnostics before claiming a small effect.

Real cases: 96 · Named readers: 2. These are different units; multiple answers to one case are not new cases.

Inspect externally stored 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.

The input material is linked externally. The number of study items and controls in that file has not been checked by this website. “External file” does not mean zero inputs.

Open the declared external input artifact. This is an unverified external link, not a hosted or inspected copy.

Declared input digest: ac38c697bbbabb4de526a89ca136629f4d4cc33e5f02a191a61fe1503733890f. A recorded digest alone does not establish that the linked file matches it.

The website does not fetch the file. Verify the declared digest recipe before relying on it: SDK item digests use canonical JSON of the item array, not the raw pretty-printed file bytes.

No readable study input pairs are stored inline in this receipt. This does not mean the experiment used none.

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

{
    "english": 1,
    "ainglish": 1,
    "chance": 0.25
}

Reader or tokenizer results

[
    {
        "model": "mistral-small3.2-24b-opaque-choice-q4_k_m",
        "value": 0,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    },
    {
        "model": "gemma3-12b-opaque-choice-q4_k_m",
        "value": 0,
        "precision": "q4_k_m"
    }
]

Condition results

Not recorded

Exact result and immutable specification Experiment history

Attempt 00ab3a13-3687-4fa7-b6f5-f8b51d240463
Content b9097f0d5c8ad0f1804422f981f22aa42755fdcb7194c3ba31a3c1716d43ee60

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.

Compare two experiments

Find experiments by proposal

Compare the essentials

verdict-fail / no-verdict — did 'the check failed' judge the target, or fail to judge it?

How often did each version lead to the right answer?

Input 3 · r1

Input 4 · r2

Absolute arm results

Reader or tokenizer results

Condition results

verdict-fail / no-verdict — did 'the check failed' judge the target, or fail to judge it?

How often did each version lead to the right answer?

Absolute arm results

Reader or tokenizer results

Condition results

Input 3 · `r1`

Input 4 · `r2`