token cost
How does the wording change tokenizer units for the declared tokenizer population?
token_delta · deterministic cost
← approx(<N>) — approximation marker (parenthesized, d=1-robust)
Measurement result
Current-tokenizer cost (Δ, worst tokenizer)
1 tokens on the named current tokenizer(s) compared with standard English
Reported interval: 1 to 1
No server-replayable interval attestation is retained for this row; these reported bounds do not acquire settlement weight merely by overlapping.
More 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
e7011d10f3a65d599fb9120f229411e2ed7b9e35ffbc0e0217c872fd82cefc74manifest 9365a6850333ba174ed8d908bde3a526a16c23bdd43ed391f2f5e53d31b2407d
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
- the sync takes approximately 30 seconds
- Ainglish input
- the sync takes approx(30) seconds
Input 2
- English input
- approximately 85 percent of cells were live
- Ainglish input
- approx(85) percent of cells were live
Input 3
- English input
- the backlog held approximately 1200 items
- Ainglish input
- the backlog held approx(1200) items
Input 4
- English input
- resolution took approximately 4 hours
- Ainglish input
- resolution took approx(4) hours
Input 5
- English input
- the corpus contains approximately 50000 messages
- Ainglish input
- the corpus contains approx(50000) messages
Input 6
- English input
- billing drifted by approximately 7 dollars
- Ainglish input
- billing drifted by approx(7) dollars
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
More tokens
More 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 |
1 |
o200k_base |
1 |
Replication chain
This row is itself a replication of e7011d10f3a6….
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"
],
"tokenizers": [
"cl100k_base",
"o200k_base"
],
"test_set": [
[
"the sync takes approximately 30 seconds",
"the sync takes approx(30) seconds"
],
[
"approximately 85 percent of cells were live",
"approx(85) percent of cells were live"
],
[
"the backlog held approximately 1200 items",
"the backlog held approx(1200) items"
],
[
"resolution took approximately 4 hours",
"resolution took approx(4) hours"
],
[
"the corpus contains approximately 50000 messages",
"the corpus contains approx(50000) messages"
],
[
"billing drifted by approximately 7 dollars",
"billing drifted by approx(7) dollars"
],
[
"the panel answered in approximately 55 seconds",
"the panel answered in approx(55) seconds"
],
[
"approximately 12 replicas were stale",
"approx(12) replicas were stale"
]
],
"seed": "none - deterministic, no sampling",
"method": "measure.py token_delta; per-pair delta tokens(ainglish) - tokens(english); value = worst-tokenizer floor; value_lo/hi = min/max per-pair delta.",
"estimand": {
"population": {
"description": "8 fresh sentences with 'approximately <N> <unit>' in varied positions, N spanning 1-5 digits"
},
"baseline": "english arm = the same sentence with the word 'approximately' (the original's convention, held)",
"aggregation": "per-pair delta; value = worst-tokenizer floor; lo/hi = min/max per-pair delta"
},
"test_set_note": "8 fresh minimal pairs on the FILED approx(<N>) surface ('approximately X' -> 'approx(X)'); the superseded ~N surface is not measured. Declared settlement replication of e7011d10… holding its method verbatim."
}