Story 01 · People · Ratified language
Does “we” include the person being addressed?
we-including-you includes the reader; we-excluding-you does not.
The starting sentenceWe will review the draft.
Two explicit versionswe-including-you will review the draft.
we-excluding-you will review the draft.
Why the distinction mattersThe reader knows whether they are included in the group doing the review.
Try it in context
Joining a museum visit
A friend writes to you about a visit you are planning together.
Ainglish
we-including-you will visit the museum on Saturday.
In ordinary English
We will visit the museum on Saturday, and you are part of that group.
Do not read this as more than it says. This identifies the group. It does not tell you who buys the tickets.
Link to this example
An update, not an invitation
A colleague tells you about a meeting of their own team.
Ainglish
we-excluding-you will meet the curator at noon.
In ordinary English
Our group will meet the curator at noon; you are not included in that group.
Do not read this as more than it says. You are excluded from this particular “we”, not from every later activity.
Link to this example
Who needs a raincoat?
A trip organiser writes directly to you about a walk.
Ainglish
we-including-you will walk along the coast.
In ordinary English
Our group, including you, will walk along the coast.
Do not read this as more than it says. You belong to the walking group. The marker does not itself state the weather or require particular equipment.
Link to this example
Your booking is separate
You have your own booking. Two friends tell you about a change to theirs.
Ainglish
we-excluding-you have cancelled our booking.
In ordinary English
Our group, which does not include you, has cancelled its booking.
Do not read this as more than it says. Your separate booking is not said to be cancelled. The marker identifies the group; it does not perform a cancellation.
Link to this example
Current evidence and source notes
Editorial revision 2026-09-07.1. Ratification, experimental support and observed use are different facts.
- Language lifecycle
- ratifiedStanding language: yes
- Settled metric results
- Token cost: lower · Comprehension accuracy: no settled result
- Showcase readiness
- Needs comprehension evidence
- Observed adoption
- unscanned
Copy-safe caption
“we-including-you includes the reader; we-excluding-you does not.”
What this example does not establish: Do not call human comprehension experimentally proven; present the distinction itself and qualify the token claim.
Safe to publish as an example of the registered semantic distinction only when this live status block and claim guard travel with it; this is not a scientific endorsement.
Story 02 · People · Ratified language
Does “you” address one recipient or the whole group?
you-one addresses one recipient; you-all addresses the whole group.
The starting sentenceYou should approve the change.
Two explicit versionsyou-one should approve the change.
you-all should approve the change.
Why the distinction mattersThe message assigns one owner or a group obligation without relying on context.
Try it in context
Addressing one named person
The message explicitly addresses Sam in a three-person chat.
Ainglish
Sam, you-one should check the guest list.
In ordinary English
Sam is the one addressee being asked to check the guest list.
Do not read this as more than it says. you-one does not choose a person for you. Sam must already be identified, and somebody else may have a separate duty too.
Link to this example
Addressing the whole group
A message is addressed to Sam, Noor and Jules together.
Ainglish
you-all may inspect the exhibition plan.
In ordinary English
Every member of the addressed group may inspect the exhibition plan.
Do not read this as more than it says. This does not decide between one joint inspection and separate inspections, or include strangers who later receive a forwarded copy.
Link to this example
One named key holder
The organiser addresses Jules by name in the volunteer chat.
Ainglish
Jules, you-one should bring the cupboard key.
In ordinary English
Jules alone is the addressee of this request to bring the cupboard key.
Do not read this as more than it says. This does not assert that Jules is the only person who possesses a key. Other people may have separate requests.
Link to this example
Everyone gets the update
The addressee group is explicitly the four enrolled workshop participants.
Ainglish
you-all will receive the revised timetable.
In ordinary English
Every one of the four addressed participants will receive the revised timetable.
Do not read this as more than it says. The marker does not include all readers of a later public screenshot, or require four separate sending operations.
Link to this example
Current evidence and source notes
Editorial revision 2026-09-07.1. Ratification, experimental support and observed use are different facts.
- Language lifecycle
- ratifiedStanding language: yes
- Settled metric results
- Token cost: lower · Comprehension accuracy: no settled result
- Showcase readiness
- Needs comprehension evidence
- Observed adoption
- unscanned
Copy-safe caption
“you-one addresses one recipient; you-all addresses the whole group.”
What this example does not establish: Do not present token confirmation as a comprehension study.
Safe to publish as an example of the registered semantic distinction only when this live status block and claim guard travel with it; this is not a scientific endorsement.
Story 03 · Knowledge · Ratified language
Does the answer exist but remain unknown, or has nobody decided it?
fact-not-known means evidence is missing; choice-not-made means the decision is still pending.
The starting sentenceThe region is undecided.
Two explicit versionsfact-not-known — region.
choice-not-made — region.
Why the distinction mattersThe next agent retrieves an existing answer or routes an authorised decision instead of guessing.
Try it in context
Look up an existing answer
The venue committee has already selected a room, but the speaker has not seen its decision.
Ainglish
fact-not-known — which room the committee selected.
In ordinary English
The room selection already exists; I do not have enough evidence to say what it is.
Do not read this as more than it says. It is not an undecided choice merely because this speaker does not know the answer. Nor does the marker itself ask anyone to investigate.
Link to this example
A decision still has to be made
The authorised venue committee has not selected a room yet.
Ainglish
choice-not-made — which room the committee will select.
In ordinary English
There is no operative room selection yet; the committee still has to choose.
Do not read this as more than it says. More information may help, but looking harder cannot retrieve a decision that does not exist. This message does not give the reader authority to decide.
Link to this example
The result exists somewhere
A parcel was weighed this morning, but the current speaker has not received the result.
Ainglish
fact-not-known — the parcel’s recorded mass.
In ordinary English
A recorded mass exists, but I do not have enough evidence to state it.
Do not read this as more than it says. Another person may already know it. The marker is about this speaker’s evidence, not universal ignorance.
Link to this example
A preference is not a decision
The book-club organiser prefers a novel but has not made the authorised selection.
Ainglish
choice-not-made — the book for next month.
In ordinary English
The authorised choice of next month’s book has not yet been made.
Do not read this as more than it says. The organiser may have a strong preference. Undecided does not mean indifferent, and it gives no one else permission to decide.
Link to this example
Current evidence and source notes
Editorial revision 2026-09-07.1. Ratification, experimental support and observed use are different facts.
- Language lifecycle
- ratifiedStanding language: yes
- Settled metric results
- Token cost: lower · Comprehension accuracy: no settled result
- Showcase readiness
- Needs comprehension evidence
- Observed adoption
- unscanned
Copy-safe caption
“fact-not-known means evidence is missing; choice-not-made means the decision is still pending.”
What this example does not establish: Do not imply that the marker proves an adequate search or a sound decision process.
Safe to publish as an example of the registered semantic distinction only when this live status block and claim guard travel with it; this is not a scientific endorsement.
Story 04 · Delegation · Ratified language
May the recipient hand the task to somebody else?
no-delegation forbids handoff; one-hop-delegation-allowed permits direct delegates but no further handoff.
The starting sentenceComplete the audit yourself.
Two explicit versionsComplete the audit, no-delegation.
Complete the audit, one-hop-delegation-allowed.
Why the distinction mattersResponsibility cannot silently travel farther through an agent chain than the sender intended.
Try it in context
Tools are not another person
Noor is asked to reconcile a receipt ledger.
Ainglish
Noor, reconcile the receipt ledger, no-delegation.
In ordinary English
Noor must not assign a completion-bearing part of the reconciliation to another principal.
Do not read this as more than it says. A calculator under Noor’s control is still allowed. Giving another agent responsibility for checking half the receipts is a handoff.
Link to this example
Several helpers, just one level
Noor is responsible for preparing an exhibition for its organiser.
Ainglish
Noor, prepare the exhibition, one-hop-delegation-allowed.
In ordinary English
Noor may use one or more direct delegates, but those delegates may not pass their work on again. Noor remains accountable to the organiser.
Do not read this as more than it says. One hop limits depth, not the number of direct helpers. It neither requires delegation nor overrides a separate rule that forbids it.
Link to this example
Advice without handing off the job
Mira is responsible for checking a translation and may ask a colleague a vocabulary question.
Ainglish
Mira, check the translation, no-delegation.
In ordinary English
Mira must not assign any completion-bearing part of the translation check to another principal.
Do not read this as more than it says. Seeking advice is not automatically delegation. Making a colleague responsible for checking a paragraph would be a handoff.
Link to this example
The helper cannot pass it on
An organiser gives Ivo responsibility for preparing name badges.
Ainglish
Ivo, prepare the name badges, one-hop-delegation-allowed.
In ordinary English
Ivo may assign parts to direct helpers, who may not delegate those parts again; Ivo remains accountable.
Do not read this as more than it says. A helper’s convenient offer to outsource the printing does not add a second permitted delegation level.
Link to this example
Current evidence and source notes
Editorial revision 2026-09-07.1. Ratification, experimental support and observed use are different facts.
- Language lifecycle
- ratifiedStanding language: yes
- Settled metric results
- Token cost: lower · Comprehension accuracy: no settled result
- Showcase readiness
- Needs comprehension evidence
- Observed adoption
- unscanned
Copy-safe caption
“no-delegation forbids handoff; one-hop-delegation-allowed permits direct delegates but no further handoff.”
What this example does not establish: Do not claim compliance or comprehension from token counts.
Safe to publish as an example of the registered semantic distinction only when this live status block and claim guard travel with it; this is not a scientific endorsement.
Story 05 · Transformations · Ratified language
Must a referenced passage keep its exact words, or only preserve its meaning?
text-fixed preserves the exact logical text; meaning-fixed permits rewording only when complete meaning survives.
The starting sentenceRewrite the notice without changing it.
Two explicit versionsRewrite the notice, text-fixed(notice-v3).
Rewrite the notice, meaning-fixed(notice-v3).
Why the distinction mattersThe editor knows whether exact copying is required or a faithful paraphrase is permitted.
Try it in context
Keep the actual words
notice-v3 names the exact approved notice. The page layout may change.
Ainglish
Lay out the notice, text-fixed(notice-v3).
In ordinary English
Preserve the referenced logical text exactly while laying out the notice.
Do not read this as more than it says. A nicer paraphrase does not preserve the exact text. This is not a promise of identical pixels or file bytes.
Link to this example
Reword without changing meaning
notice-v3 is the complete reference passage for an authorised rewrite.
Ainglish
Rewrite the notice, meaning-fixed(notice-v3).
In ordinary English
Rewording is allowed only if the complete meaning of the referenced notice survives.
Do not read this as more than it says. Keeping the general topic while dropping an exception is not meaning preservation. The marker does not prove the rewrite is faithful.
Link to this example
Keep a quotation intact
quote-17 uniquely identifies the exact logical text of an approved quotation.
Ainglish
Place the quotation in the programme, text-fixed(quote-17).
In ordinary English
Use the exact referenced quotation text in the programme.
Do not read this as more than it says. Changing the font is different from changing a word. The marker does not require identical line wrapping or image pixels.
Link to this example
The exception must survive
opening-notice-4 says the library opens at nine except on bank holidays.
Ainglish
Rewrite the opening notice, meaning-fixed(opening-notice-4).
In ordinary English
Rewrite the notice while preserving its complete meaning, including the bank-holiday exception.
Do not read this as more than it says. “The library opens at nine” alone drops a condition. A simpler sentence is not faithful if it changes when the claim applies.
Link to this example
Current evidence and source notes
Editorial revision 2026-09-07.1. Ratification, experimental support and observed use are different facts.
- Language lifecycle
- ratifiedStanding language: yes
- Settled metric results
- Token cost: lower · Comprehension accuracy: no settled result
- Showcase readiness
- Needs comprehension evidence
- Observed adoption
- unscanned
Copy-safe caption
“text-fixed preserves the exact logical text; meaning-fixed permits rewording only when complete meaning survives.”
What this example does not establish: Do not imply the marker proves exact fidelity, semantic equivalence, comprehension, or permission to transform.
Safe to publish as an example of the registered semantic distinction only when this live status block and claim guard travel with it; this is not a scientific endorsement.
Story 06 · Claims · Ratified language
How should an agent mark that new evidence has killed an earlier claim?
falsum-ref marks an earlier claim as refuted and names the checkable observation that killed it.
The starting sentenceThe deploy is green. Correction: the smoke test that used to pass now fails on main.
Two explicit versionsdeploy-green ⊥(smoke-test→previously-passing test now fails on main@HEAD).
deploy-green refuted(smoke-test->previously-passing test now fails on main@HEAD).
Why the distinction mattersA receiver stops relying on the named claim and can rerun the exact observation behind its retraction.
Try it in context
Name why a claim was refuted
The claim export-valid said every row had a date. CSV-check checks the dated export file.
Ainglish
export-valid ⊥(CSV-check→row-12-has-no-date-in-export-v3).
In ordinary English
The export-valid claim is refuted: rerunning CSV-check on export-v3 reveals that row 12 has no date.
Do not read this as more than it says. A bare “wrong” omits the observation and re-check path. The notation does not make an inaccurate check trustworthy.
Link to this example
The same meaning without a special symbol
A plain-text system must report the same missing-date observation.
Ainglish
export-valid refuted(CSV-check->row-12-has-no-date-in-export-v3).
In ordinary English
The same export-valid claim is refuted by the same check and missing date, using the ASCII spelling.
Do not read this as more than it says. The two spellings are not two independent confirmations, and the ASCII form still needs the checkable observation.
Link to this example
One counterexample to an all-claim
all-labelled claims that every box in inventory-v5 has a label; label-check inspects that fixed inventory.
Ainglish
all-labelled refuted(label-check->box-9-has-no-label-in-inventory-v5).
In ordinary English
The claim that all boxes are labelled is refuted by the reproducible finding that box 9 in inventory-v5 has no label.
Do not read this as more than it says. One missing label refutes “all”, but does not say that most boxes lack labels. The stated check still has to be accurate.
Check your reading: Does finding one unlabelled box establish that most boxes lack labels?
No. One counterexample defeats “every box is labelled”. It does not establish how common the problem is.
An authored teaching explanation, not a reader measurement or an additional approval requirement.
Link to this example
Refute the named version
totals-match-v2 claims equal totals in ledger-v2; sum-check gives 91 and 93 for that version.
Ainglish
totals-match-v2 ⊥(sum-check→ledger-v2-totals-91-and-93).
In ordinary English
The equality claim for ledger-v2 is refuted: sum-check reproducibly returns unequal totals, 91 and 93.
Do not read this as more than it says. This targets the named claim and version. It does not automatically refute a corrected ledger-v3.
Check your reading: Does the failed check of ledger-v2 also refute a corrected ledger-v3?
No. The observation is bound to the named version. Check v3 before making a claim about it.
An authored teaching explanation, not a reader measurement or an additional approval requirement.
Link to this example
Current evidence and source notes
Editorial revision 2026-09-13.1. Ratification, experimental support and observed use are different facts.
- Language lifecycle
- ratifiedStanding language: yes
- Settled metric results
- Token cost: lower · Comprehension accuracy: no settled result
- Showcase readiness
- Needs comprehension evidence
- Observed adoption
- unscanned
Copy-safe caption
“falsum-ref marks an earlier claim as refuted and names the checkable observation that killed it.”
What this example does not establish: Do not imply that the notation itself proves the instrument exists, the observation is accurate, or the claim was false.
Safe to publish as an example of the registered semantic distinction only when this live status block and claim guard travel with it; this is not a scientific endorsement.
Story 07 · Time · Ratified language
When was a claim current, and how long may a receiver rely on it?
as_of names the evidence time; until names the end of the claim’s stated validity.
The starting sentenceThe service is healthy.
Two explicit versionsThe service is healthy as_of(2026-09-04T09:00:00Z).
The service is healthy until(2026-09-04T10:00:00Z).
Why the distinction mattersA receiver can distinguish a dated observation from a claim carrying an explicit expiry.
Try it in context
A dated observation
A booking screen was checked at 09:00 UTC on 5 September.
Ainglish
Room 4 is available as_of(2026-09-05T09:00:00Z).
In ordinary English
The evidence supporting Room 4’s availability was current at 09:00 UTC on 5 September.
Do not read this as more than it says. This does not establish that the room is still available when somebody reads the message later.
Check your reading: At 09:30, does this observation alone establish that Room 4 is still free?
No. It dates the evidence to 09:00. Recheck availability before relying on the room still being free.
An authored teaching explanation, not a reader measurement or an additional approval requirement.
Link to this example
A claim with an expiry
The speaker states how long a room-availability claim may be relied on.
Ainglish
Room 4 is available until(2026-09-05T10:00:00Z).
In ordinary English
This availability claim is licensed only through 10:00 UTC on 5 September; after that, treat it as expired.
Do not read this as more than it says. Expiry of the claim does not say that the room necessarily becomes occupied at 10:00.
Check your reading: At 10:01, does the expired claim establish that Room 4 is occupied?
No. The permission to rely on this claim has expired. The room’s actual state is a separate question.
An authored teaching explanation, not a reader measurement or an additional approval requirement.
Link to this example
A timetable checked yesterday
The source supporting a departure-time claim was checked at 16:00 UTC on 6 September.
Ainglish
The ferry leaves at noon as_of(2026-09-06T16:00:00Z).
In ordinary English
The evidence supporting the noon departure was current at 16:00 UTC on 6 September.
Do not read this as more than it says. The timestamp dates the evidence. It does not promise that no timetable change has occurred since then.
Link to this example
Recheck after the stated horizon
The speaker allows a stock-availability claim to be relied on only until a specified time.
Ainglish
Spare lamps are available until(2026-09-07T12:00:00Z).
In ordinary English
This availability claim is valid only through noon UTC on 7 September.
Do not read this as more than it says. After noon the claim expires. It does not become a claim that the lamps are gone.
Link to this example
Current evidence and source notes
Editorial revision 2026-09-13.1. Ratification, experimental support and observed use are different facts.
- Language lifecycle
- ratifiedStanding language: yes
- Settled metric results
- Token cost: lower · Comprehension accuracy: no settled result
- Showcase readiness
- Needs comprehension evidence
- Observed adoption
- unscanned
Copy-safe caption
“as_of names the evidence time; until names the end of the claim’s stated validity.”
What this example does not establish: Do not imply that either marker proves the claim was accurate at the named time, remains true now, or is cheaper under every present tokenizer.
Safe to publish as an example of the registered semantic distinction only when this live status block and claim guard travel with it; this is not a scientific endorsement.
Story 08 · Comparisons · Ratified language
Which baseline does a reported change actually compare against?
vs names the baseline behind a delta instead of leaving the comparison implicit.
The starting sentenceLatency changed by −12 ms.
Two explicit versionslatency Δ−12ms vs(release-0.49).
latency Δ−12ms vs(previous-hour).
Why the distinction mattersA reader can identify the named comparison instead of silently choosing another baseline. Reproducing the number still requires the underlying data and method.
Try it in context
Which ticket price?
Illustrative prices: a standard ticket cost £20 last month and costs £15 now. A members’ ticket costs £10 now.
Ainglish
Standard ticket price changed by −£5 vs(last month’s standard ticket).
In ordinary English
The standard ticket price is £5 lower than last month’s standard ticket price.
Do not read this as more than it says. Compared with today’s members’ ticket, the same £15 ticket is £5 more expensive. Naming the baseline prevents the reader silently choosing the other comparison.
Check your reading: Is today’s standard ticket cheaper than today’s members’ ticket?
No. £15 is £5 more than £10. The stated saving compares £15 with last month’s £20 standard ticket, not with every other ticket.
An authored teaching explanation, not a reader measurement or an additional approval requirement.
Link to this example
A named control
Illustrative test scores only: a named careful-English control gets 8 of 10 answers right; another condition gets 9 of 10 right.
Ainglish
Accuracy changed by +10 percentage points vs(careful-English control).
In ordinary English
Accuracy was 10 percentage points higher than with the careful-English control.
Do not read this as more than it says. These are teaching numbers, not Ainglish study results. The marker does not prove that the control is fair or that the readers are independent.
Link to this example
Two journeys, one comparison
Illustrative journey times: the direct bus took 35 minutes; the walking route took 50 minutes.
Ainglish
Journey time was 15 minutes shorter vs(the walking route).
In ordinary English
The bus journey was 15 minutes shorter than the walking journey.
Do not read this as more than it says. The baseline is a different route, not last week’s bus. This does not say which route will be quicker tomorrow.
Link to this example
A percentage is not a point
Illustrative survey shares: 40% before a change and 50% after it.
Ainglish
The share rose by 10 percentage points vs(the earlier 40% share).
In ordinary English
The share increased from 40% to 50%, a rise of 10 percentage points.
Do not read this as more than it says. That is a 25% relative increase. Naming the baseline does not make “10 percent” interchangeable with “10 percentage points”.
Check your reading: Does a rise from 40% to 50% mean a 10% relative increase?
No. It is 10 percentage points, or a 25% relative increase: (50 − 40) ÷ 40. The baseline marker does not choose the unit for you.
An authored teaching explanation, not a reader measurement or an additional approval requirement.
Link to this example
Current evidence and source notes
Editorial revision 2026-09-07.2. Ratification, experimental support and observed use are different facts.
- Language lifecycle
- ratifiedStanding language: yes
- Settled metric results
- Token cost: lower · Comprehension accuracy: no settled result
- Showcase readiness
- Needs comprehension evidence
- Observed adoption
- unscanned
Copy-safe caption
“vs names the baseline behind a delta instead of leaving the comparison implicit.”
What this example does not establish: Do not imply the marker proves that the named baseline exists or is appropriate, or that the notation is typo-proof. Its declared one-edit `vs(` → `vs` alias-class neighbour loses explicit binding while leaving the baseline text visibly present.
Safe to publish as an example of the registered semantic distinction only when this live status block and claim guard travel with it; this is not a scientific endorsement.
