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 · Not recorded on either side
First result
Not recorded in this structured field
Second result
Not recorded in this structured field
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
[
"qwen3.6:27b",
"gemma4:31b-it-q4_K_M"
]
Second result
[
"qwen3.6-27b",
"gemma4-31b"
]
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 · -0.0119 percentage points
Not yet counting in evidence decisions. This row remains available for assessment, but does not currently carry a counting evidence result.
What was measured
comprehension accuracy · comprehension_accuracy_delta How does the wording change correct answers from the declared reader panel?
Reported result
-0.0119 percentage points Reported interval: -0.0238 to 0.
The value is neutral or does not resolve the registered direction.
English comparison
English comparison not recorded as a structured label
Declared by the submitter; not a certification of equivalent information.
Reader exposure
Reader exposure not recorded as a structured label
Named instruments
qwen3.6:27b, gemma4:31b-it-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
Disputed
Eligible replications disagree and this original does not hold a settlement majority.
How often did each version lead to the right answer?
Separate English and Ainglish accuracy was not recorded as two usable fractions. The difference alone cannot tell us how well either version was understood.
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): -0.0238 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.
Real cases: not recorded in this summary · Named readers: 2. 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.
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, 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.
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
-5.88 percentage points Reported interval: -20 to 0.
The value is neutral or does not resolve the registered direction.
English comparison
English comparison not recorded as a structured label
Declared by the submitter; not a certification of equivalent information.
Reader exposure
Reader exposure not recorded as a structured label
Named instruments
qwen3.6-27b, gemma4-31b
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
Disagrees with the named original
This eligible row adds one disagreement. An adverse or null direction is a valid result and remains visible.
This result checks a named original, not every experiment on the proposal.Read its target original
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.
How often did each version lead to the right answer?
English comparison
100.00%
100.00%
Ainglish version
94.12%
94.12%
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): -20 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: 20 · Named readers: 2. 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 1–6 of 20 readable, inline study items, in stored order—not a selection of successes. 4 control items are kept separate.
Each result has its own input pages. Positions across the two studies do not imply matched cases.
Input 5 · m1
English input
The server is required to log every authentication failure; this is an absolute requirement of the specification and no circumstances excuse skipping it.
Ainglish input
The server MUST log every authentication failure.
Question
A server skips this behaviour but documents a considered reason. Per this instruction it is:
Recorded answer options
conformant · non-conformant · cannot tell
Submitted answer key
non-conformant. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.
No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.
Input 6 · m2
English input
Clients are required to send the request identifier on every retry; the specification permits no exception to this.
Ainglish input
Clients MUST send the request identifier on every retry.
Question
A client omits this behaviour after weighing the trade-offs. Per this instruction it is:
Recorded answer options
conformant · non-conformant · cannot tell
Submitted answer key
non-conformant. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.
No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.
Input 7 · m3
English input
The proxy is required to strip hop-by-hop headers before forwarding; implementations have no discretion here.
Ainglish input
The proxy MUST strip hop-by-hop headers before forwarding.
Question
A proxy does not do this, and explains why in its documentation. Per this instruction it is:
Recorded answer options
conformant · non-conformant · cannot tell
Submitted answer key
non-conformant. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.
No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.
Input 8 · m4
English input
Resolvers are required to validate the response signature; this requirement is unconditional.
Ainglish input
Resolvers MUST validate the response signature.
Question
A resolver skips this step for performance and says so plainly. Per this instruction it is:
Recorded answer options
conformant · non-conformant · cannot tell
Submitted answer key
non-conformant. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.
No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.
Input 9 · s1
English input
It is recommended that the client retry with exponential backoff; there can exist valid reasons to do otherwise, provided the implications are understood and carefully weighed.
Ainglish input
The client SHOULD retry with exponential backoff.
Question
A client deviates from this behaviour after understanding and weighing the implications. Per this instruction it is:
Recorded answer options
conformant · non-conformant · cannot tell
Submitted answer key
conformant. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.
No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.
Input 10 · s2
English input
It is recommended that servers compress responses larger than one kilobyte, though an implementation aware of the consequences can choose not to in particular circumstances.
Ainglish input
Servers SHOULD compress responses larger than one kilobyte.
Question
A server does not do this, having examined and accepted the consequences. Per this instruction it is:
Recorded answer options
conformant · non-conformant · cannot tell
Submitted answer key
conformant. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.
No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.
Recorded input digest: e6740992344989bb58b1298b65e073bed45388e74712bfa132edeb739442901c
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.
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.
