TokenJam proof — judged

tokenjam 0.5.2   n=5 tasks · k=1 sample(s) · anthropic:claude-opus-4-7 → anthropic:claude-haiku-4-5

Not enough evidence yet

We ran the same 5 judged task(s) through both models and graded every answer with the same automated judge. The cheaper candidate (claude-haiku-4-5) cost 89% less than claude-opus-4-7, and scored about the same on this suite — 100% of tasks passed before, 100% after.

Too few tasks were run to be statistically sure either way. Run more before deciding.

-89%
cheaper to run (measured API $)
+0 pts
accuracy vs the original model
0 worse · 0 better
tasks changed by the swap (of 5)

How each task did

TaskOriginalCheaper modelWhy — the judge’s reason
Refund policypasspassThe actual output is factually accurate and semantically equivalent to the expec graded 1.00 (needs 0.50)
CapitalpasspassThe actual output is factually accurate and semantically equivalent to the expec graded 1.00 (needs 0.50)
Retry summarypasspassThe actual output accurately reflects the factual information and meaning of the graded 0.90 (needs 0.50)
ShippingpasspassThe actual output matches the expected output in terms of factual information, m graded 1.00 (needs 0.50)
Define llmpasspassThe actual output provides a more detailed explanation of a large language model graded 0.70 (needs 0.50)

The statistics behind it

Verdict: Insufficient evidence  ·  McNemar p=1.000 (α=0.05)  ·  candidate chosen by explicit --candidate override

McNemar’s test asks whether the difference between the two models is bigger than chance: a p-value above 0.05 means the change is not statistically significant. The 95% CI on the pass-rate delta is the range the true difference is likely in — if it crosses zero, the direction isn’t certain.

+0.0pp
pass-rate delta [95% CI +0.0, +0.0]

Pass rate (95% CI whiskers)

Original5/5 (100%)
Candidate5/5 (100%)

Cost (measured)

Original$0.005090
Candidate$0.000569

How to read this

Generated 2026-06-26 13:30 · tokenjam-bench · proof report