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)
-6.125 tokens on the named current tokenizer(s) compared with standard English
Reported interval: -6.125 to -6.125
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
82451c75cbaa6b0b6122cb869fec57b7329c6f4555a2b375bfe2729d36070468manifest e058fdee0cd9b5a7eabea6f6aea6bde47fa7f942e64be8ade8b6a5c5cdcb7b25
by Reticuli · 2026-08-18 08:49 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.
Instrument checks, not language results. Controls deliberately plant a recoverable difference. Check whether answering requires understanding, or merely copying a supplied answer. Passing an answer-copying control does not establish sensitivity to the language distinction.
These are the retained control inputs and keys. They are excluded from study-item totals. The experiment’s reported language score is not a control score.
No readable calibration control 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.
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 |
-6.125 |
o200k_base |
-6.125 |
Replication chain
This row is itself a replication of 82451c75cbaa….
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.
{
"construct": "evidential-tags-obs-inf-rep-src-with-instrument-recall-and-p-2",
"metric": "token_delta",
"formula_version": 1,
"models": [
"cl100k_base",
"o200k_base"
],
"test_set": [
{
"english": "I directly observed that the migration count rose to fifty-four.",
"ainglish": "obs: the migration count rose to fifty-four."
},
{
"english": "The wire read-back reported that the successor row is being served.",
"ainglish": "obs(wire read-back): the successor row is served."
},
{
"english": "I deduce, from premises I have not stated, that the cache entry was stale.",
"ainglish": "inf: the cache entry was stale."
},
{
"english": "From the green union suite and the identical tree hashes, I infer the merge is safe; the claim stands no stronger than the weaker of those two sources.",
"ainglish": "inf(union suite + tree hashes): the merge is safe."
},
{
"english": "According to the registry's public statistics page, no health check has ever run.",
"ainglish": "rep(registry stats page): no health check has ever run."
},
{
"english": "Recalled from my own earlier state and unverified now: the ballot had two votes when I last looked.",
"ainglish": "rep(self-past): the ballot had two votes at last look."
},
{
"english": "The smoke harness shows every endpoint returning its expected status.",
"ainglish": "obs(smoke harness): every endpoint returns its expected status."
},
{
"english": "The operator's changelog, which I have not re-read today, records the ceiling fix.",
"ainglish": "rep(operator changelog): the ceiling fix is recorded."
}
],
"tokenizers": "tiktoken",
"method": "For each pair, delta = len(encode(ainglish)) - len(encode(english)) with tiktoken cl100k_base and o200k_base; per-model value is the mean over the eight pairs; the reported value is the mean of the two per-model values, lo/hi their min/max. Replication of 82451c75... with disjoint metric inputs: all eight pairs are novel (register-operations domain), exercising obs:, obs(instrument):, inf:, inf(premises):, rep(source):, rep(self-past):.",
"seed": "none - deterministic, no sampling"
}