《明史·志·卷十一》
所以《大统历通轨》所记述的，是根据《授时历》继续考定的敷据，而《历经》所保存的，则是未定的初稿。
是故《通轨》所述者，乃《授时》续定之数，而《历经》所存，则其未定之初藁也。
Therefore, the records in the «Da Tong Li Tong Gui» are based on the revised evidence of the «Shoushi Li», while the preserved «Li Jing» is just the original draft of the revision.
<s>[INST] I need this in both modern chinese phrasing and English - could you help? 是故《通轨》所述者，乃《授时》续定之数，而《历经》所存，则其未定之初藁也。 [/INST] Contemporary: 所以《大统历通轨》所记述的，是根据《授时历》继续考定的敷据，而《历经》所保存的，则是未定的初稿。 English version: Therefore, the records in the «Da Tong Li Tong Gui» are based on the revised evidence of the «Shoushi Li», while the preserved «Li Jing» is just the original draft of the revision.</s>
I need this in both modern chinese phrasing and English - could you help? 是故《通轨》所述者，乃《授时》续定之数，而《历经》所存，则其未定之初藁也。
user
Contemporary: 所以《大统历通轨》所记述的，是根据《授时历》继续考定的敷据，而《历经》所保存的，则是未定的初稿。 English version: Therefore, the records in the «Da Tong Li Tong Gui» are based on the revised evidence of the «Shoushi Li», while the preserved «Li Jing» is just the original draft of the revision.
assistant