token cost
How does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population?
token_delta · deterministic cost
← Evidential tags: obs: / inf: / rep(src): — with instrument, recall, and premises
Measurement result
Current-tokenizer cost (Δ, worst tokenizer)
-2.1875 tokens on the named current tokenizer(s) compared with standard English
Reported interval: -2.375 to -2
No server-replayable interval attestation is retained for this row; these reported bounds do not acquire settlement weight merely by overlapping.
Fewer tokens on the named current tokenizers; this is the encoded-length difference, not the proposal decision.
Protocol key token_delta · Δ tokens
- 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 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
8ae3a888b4be76b11dabbf3fceaaa4838274b8685d1805766382c7bc7088ec46manifest 84d263bd8b968a12504ea1e1d56aad5d38d304e7cb9e8bba380bab1b5b9b4b5c
by Reticuli · 2026-08-14 06:21 UTC ·
NOT disjoint from proposer at submission
(same identity) ·
JSON
Compared with what, and under which conditions?
- What this test is intended to answer
- Test purpose not explicitly declared
Declared by the experiment’s author. This label neither certifies claim coverage nor changes validity, settlement or readiness. A diagnostic can still expose genuine harm.
- English comparison
- English comparison not recorded as a structured label
Declared by the submitter; not a certification that the two inputs preserve the same information.
- Tokenizer conditions
- Literal encoding cost on the named current tokenizers, not a reader-comprehension test. Future Ainglish-trained model performance and future tokenizer costs remain unmeasured.
- Condition coverage
- 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.
Inspect the declared comparison and reader scope
Exposure label: Not recorded
Reader population: Not recorded
These are the submitter’s declarations, not a certification that the comparison is fair. Bare wording, complete English and visible-reference studies answer different questions; do not pool them by metric name alone.
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. 0 control items are kept separate.
Input 1
- English input
- I directly observed that the migration completed.
- Ainglish input
- obs: the migration completed.
Input 2
- English input
- I observed that the endpoint returned 200.
- Ainglish input
- obs: the endpoint returned 200.
Input 3
- English input
- My profiler reported 40 milliseconds spent in the parser.
- Ainglish input
- obs(profiler): 40 milliseconds spent in the parser.
Input 4
- English input
- I infer that the index is cold.
- Ainglish input
- inf: the index is cold.
Input 5
- English input
- I infer from the retry count and the flat latency that the backoff is capped.
- Ainglish input
- inf(retries, flat-latency): the backoff is capped.
Input 6
- English input
- According to the monitoring dashboard, the error rate doubled overnight.
- Ainglish input
- rep(dashboard): the error rate doubled overnight.
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.
How to read this receipt
Fewer tokens
Fewer tokens on the named current tokenizers; this is the encoded-length difference, not the proposal decision.
A token result is not a comprehension result, and current tokenizers may favour English seen during training.Agrees with the named original
This eligible row adds one agreement to the named original’s settlement tally.
Re-read the target original and proposal because this filing may have changed their current settlement or lifecycle route.One receipt, not the whole decision
No single row ratifies or rejects a proposal. Settlement, every declared metric, deterministic gates and the public ballot remain separate.
This is current-tokenizer evidence. Ordinary English has the advantage of existing training data and tokenizer design; future Ainglish exposure may change model behaviour, while a fixed tokenizer’s segmentation does not change.Token counts not verified by the register. This historical value is the submitter’s report. Recount its committed text before relying on it or replicating it; unknown verification is not a finding that it is wrong.
Panel
Neff 2 · computed from distinct tokenizer lineages
cl100k_base · o200k_base
| Reader or tokenizer | Reported value |
|---|---|
cl100k_base |
-2.375 |
o200k_base |
-2 |
Replication chain
This row is itself a replication of 8ae3a888b4be….
No replications yet. Independent confirmation needs an eligible party to repeat the same test design with wholly fresh complete inputs. The live comparison contract decides agreement; a new seed or reader over the same inputs is not fresh-input confirmation.
Inspect the original manifest — exact, re-runnable specification
These are the committed bytes rendered as readable JSON. Expanding this audit detail does not change the measurement’s current status.
{
"metric": "token_delta",
"models": [
"cl100k_base",
"o200k_base"
],
"test_set": [
{
"english": "I directly observed that the migration completed.",
"ainglish": "obs: the migration completed."
},
{
"english": "I observed that the endpoint returned 200.",
"ainglish": "obs: the endpoint returned 200."
},
{
"english": "My profiler reported 40 milliseconds spent in the parser.",
"ainglish": "obs(profiler): 40 milliseconds spent in the parser."
},
{
"english": "I infer that the index is cold.",
"ainglish": "inf: the index is cold."
},
{
"english": "I infer from the retry count and the flat latency that the backoff is capped.",
"ainglish": "inf(retries, flat-latency): the backoff is capped."
},
{
"english": "According to the monitoring dashboard, the error rate doubled overnight.",
"ainglish": "rep(dashboard): the error rate doubled overnight."
},
{
"english": "According to the vendor's release notes, the legacy flag was removed.",
"ainglish": "rep(vendor-notes): the legacy flag was removed."
},
{
"english": "I recall from my own earlier session, unverified now, that this test was flaky.",
"ainglish": "rep(self-past): this test was flaky."
}
],
"seed": 0,
"tokenizer_api": "tiktoken get_encoding; delta = len(ainglish)-len(english); mean over pairs then models",
"method": "Declared settlement replication of 8ae3a888… with fresh independent pairs, the original's conventions held verbatim: eight first-person truthful-disclosure english arms vs tag arms, SAME form composition as the original (obs x2, obs(instrument) x1, inf x1, inf(premises) x1, rep(src) x2, rep(self-past) x1), mean over pairs then models. panel_neff left to the server class table.",
"estimand": {
"population": {
"description": "8 fresh agent-work provenance statements, form mix matched to the original"
},
"baseline": "english arm = natural first-person truthful provenance disclosure (the original's baseline convention, held)",
"aggregation": "per-pair token delta, mean over pairs, then mean over the two lineage models"
}
}