What a journal can actually measure

Question

Which performance claims can a heterogeneous local evidence journal support?

Method

A descriptive analysis of stored completeness aggregates dated 6 October 2026. The public extract contains only counts, observation date and the source fingerprint. Private event text is not published.

Counts capture whether total duration, input tokens, output tokens, a transfer field and a comparison key were present. Events were not randomised and comparable tasks were not reconstructed after the fact. This historical snapshot is not the current size of the subsequently expanded journal.

Results

Of 131 events, 23 contained a total duration and 108 did not. This is 17.6% with a documented duration; the denominator is only this dated snapshot.

No events contained measured input or output token values. The newer transfer field was absent too. One event had a comparison key.

This does not imply zero token use. Missing values are unknown. Known durations are neither a random sample nor a controlled comparison of two workflows.

The visible figure shows field completeness only. A future comparison would need tasks, model/tool conditions, time basis, error costs and independent quality acceptance defined before execution.

Sources

Redacted extracts with source fingerprints. Originals remain locally retained.

{
  "observed_at": "2026-10-06",
  "source_sha256": "eeee273a39269e922401eac28aa08f489cdf2daedf5c1436ecc6d4dd76e18ed0",
  "counts": {
    "events_at_read": 131,
    "duration_known": 23,
    "input_tokens_known": 0,
    "output_tokens_known": 0,
    "transfer_field_present": 0,
    "comparison_key_present": 1
  },
  "interpretation": "Schnappschuss zur Datenvollständigkeit; keine Stichprobe mit randomisierter Behandlung, kein Wirksamkeits- oder Geschwindigkeitsbeweis. Keine privaten Eventtexte exportiert."
}