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
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?
English comparison
100.00%
100.00%
Ainglish version
82.18%
82.18%
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): -29.4118 to -8.0357 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: 60 · Named readers: 3. 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.
Declared input digest: 6dfd5e12b61df2b766c1ff05866fa4b2ff3db2360f7e87fc49afce9fbc2dc170. 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, 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
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.
CARRIER: proxy(<M>) versus the complete careful-English mapping applied verbatim; non-inferiority margin -5pp
Reader exposure
Reader exposure not recorded as a structured label
Named instruments
perceptual-zephyr-solar-repl@provider-served
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
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: 8 · 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 1–6 of 8 readable, inline study items, in stored order—not a selection of successes. 8 control items are kept separate.
Each result has its own input pages. Positions across the two studies do not imply matched cases.
Input 9 · pr-car-01q1
English input
The code is tested; the evidence I directly verified is coverage (coverage of 91 percent); coverage is a proxy for whether the code is tested, not the same thing; the inference from coverage to whether the code is tested is the load-bearing step and it is unverified.
Ainglish input
The code is tested proxy(<coverage>); coverage of 91 percent.
Question
What did the writer directly check?
Recorded answer options
the measurement (coverage) only · the claim itself (that the code is tested) only · both the measurement and the claim · cannot tell
Submitted answer key
the measurement (coverage) only. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.
No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.
Input 10 · pr-car-01q2
English input
The code is tested; the evidence I directly verified is coverage (coverage of 91 percent); coverage is a proxy for whether the code is tested, not the same thing; the inference from coverage to whether the code is tested is the load-bearing step and it is unverified.
Ainglish input
The code is tested proxy(<coverage>); coverage of 91 percent.
Question
Suppose it later turns out that it is NOT the case that the code is tested. Going only by the sentence, what was wrong?
Recorded answer options
the step from coverage to the claim · nothing — the claim was checked directly · cannot tell · the coverage reading itself
Submitted answer key
the step from coverage to the claim. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.
No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.
Input 11 · pr-car-02q1
English input
The link is secure; the evidence I directly verified is padlock icon (the padlock icon showing); padlock icon is a proxy for whether the link is secure, not the same thing; the inference from padlock icon to whether the link is secure is the load-bearing step and it is unverified.
Ainglish input
The link is secure proxy(<padlock-icon>); the padlock icon showing.
Question
What did the writer directly check?
Recorded answer options
the claim itself (that the link is secure) only · both the measurement and the claim · cannot tell · the measurement (padlock icon) only
Submitted answer key
the measurement (padlock icon) only. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.
No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.
Input 12 · pr-car-02q2
English input
The link is secure; the evidence I directly verified is padlock icon (the padlock icon showing); padlock icon is a proxy for whether the link is secure, not the same thing; the inference from padlock icon to whether the link is secure is the load-bearing step and it is unverified.
Ainglish input
The link is secure proxy(<padlock-icon>); the padlock icon showing.
Question
Suppose it later turns out that it is NOT the case that the link is secure. Going only by the sentence, what was wrong?
Recorded answer options
nothing — the claim was checked directly · cannot tell · the padlock icon reading itself · the step from padlock icon to the claim
Submitted answer key
the step from padlock icon to the claim. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.
No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.
Input 13 · pr-car-03q1
English input
The sensor is calibrated; the evidence I directly verified is self test (the self-test passing); self test is a proxy for whether the sensor is calibrated, not the same thing; the inference from self test to whether the sensor is calibrated is the load-bearing step and it is unverified.
Ainglish input
The sensor is calibrated proxy(<self-test>); the self-test passing.
Question
What did the writer directly check?
Recorded answer options
both the measurement and the claim · cannot tell · the measurement (self test) only · the claim itself (that the sensor is calibrated) only
Submitted answer key
the measurement (self test) only. This is the supplied key, not an independent validation of it.
No per-item reader answers are stored alongside this inline example.
Input 14 · pr-car-03q2
English input
The sensor is calibrated; the evidence I directly verified is self test (the self-test passing); self test is a proxy for whether the sensor is calibrated, not the same thing; the inference from self test to whether the sensor is calibrated is the load-bearing step and it is unverified.
Ainglish input
The sensor is calibrated proxy(<self-test>); the self-test passing.
Question
Suppose it later turns out that it is NOT the case that the sensor is calibrated. Going only by the sentence, what was wrong?
Recorded answer options
cannot tell · the self test reading itself · the step from self test to the claim · nothing — the claim was checked directly
Submitted answer key
the step from self test to the claim. 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: bd72a4b4b2582e723e6099a53bb2ba5d1e10c3488c023cd3504de504872e16e7
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.
