What the product is
Your data becomes a model.
Evidence decides what ships.
Anyone can produce weights. The decision is the product. Type a goal and watch it become a contract:
Define what matters
Data or a goal becomes a measurable task with typed constraints.
Establish the baseline
No-training models land first. If one already passes, that is the answer.
Build competing candidates
Frozen features, fine-tunes, adapters. The smallest one that clears the contract wins.
Evaluate on held-out evidence
Disjoint splits, intervals, paired tests, latency measured where it runs.
Own what passes
A checksummed artifact, its evidence, and an explicit verdict.
Verify it yourself
The evidence, one click away.
Everything the hero shows is measured from one real run. The full record is here for anyone who wants to check it: the arm table with intervals, the gates, the reference harness, the recorded training replay, and what the system will and will not do.
Open the build evidence — measured arms, gates, reference harness, training replay, build contract
Measured
A real model, on a real GPU
The task is one nothing could have been pre-trained on: shelf photos answered with an arbitrary internal bin code. That is why a near-floor zero-shot is the expected result here, and why the delta means what a customer would get on their own data. Every figure below is generated from the run's own verdict.json.
| Arm | Accuracy | 95% Wilson | n | Lineage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zero-shot baseline | 0.0% | [0.0%, 3.8%] | 96 | measured |
| Engineered-prompt baseline | 0.0% | [0.0%, 3.8%] | 96 | measured |
| Adapted (LoRA) | 11.5% | [6.5%, 19.4%] | 96 | measured |
- Adapted vs prompted baseline
- McNemar exact, p = 0.0009766 measured
- Envelope
- p50 99.3 ms, p95 103.2 ms, peak 2.62 GB, adapter 34.2 MB, measured on geforce-rtx-5090-34gb — the device that ran it measured
- Training
- 179 s, 3.40 GB peak VRAM, 240 examples measured
- Evaluation data
- private — generated locally from a seed with a private answer vocabulary; the images did not exist before this run. A model guessing uniformly over the answer vocabulary would score 6.2%, which is what makes "near the floor" a number you can check
- Split integrity
- 12 train scenes, 8 eval scenes, disjoint; 0 exact and 0 perceptual-hash collisions
- ✓evidencecomplete
- –accuracy11.46%
- ✓significancep = 0.0010, adapted +11.46% vs B1 (engineered prompt)
- ✓slice regressionno regression across 4 slice(s)
- –latency103.2 ms
- –memory2.6208 GB
- –artifact size34.1535 MB
Pipeline validation
The same shape, on the reference harness
A pipeline validation on a deterministic CPU harness — not a benchmark, not a real vision-language model, and not a customer result. It is here because the shape of the evidence is the point.
Open the full arm table, significance, envelope and gates
| Arm | Accuracy | 95% Wilson | n | Seeds | Lineage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zero-shot baseline | 6.1% | [4.7%, 8.0%] | 800 | single run | test_fixture |
| Engineered-prompt baseline | 15.2% | [12.9%, 17.9%] | 800 | single run | test_fixture |
| Default LoRA | 56.2% | [54.2%, 58.1%] | 800 | 3 seeds, 54.8%–56.9% | test_fixture |
| Planner-selected adaptation | 55.2% | [53.2%, 57.2%] | 800 | 3 seeds, 53.9%–56.0% | test_fixture |
- Adapted vs prompted baseline
- McNemar exact, p < 1e-15 test_fixture
- Adapted vs default LoRA
- McNemar exact, p = 0.7561 — no planner advantage is claimed, and the fixture is built so it cannot encode one test_fixture
- Split integrity
- 20 train scenes, 20 eval scenes, disjoint; 0 exact and 0 perceptual-hash collisions across splits
- Envelope
- p95 0.17 ms, peak memory 0.09 GB, artifact 2.10 MB, measured on cpu-local measured
- What this run is
- A pipeline validation on the deterministic reference harness, not a benchmark and not a real vision-language model. The accuracy figures are labelled test_fixture for that reason; the envelope figures are labelled measured because the latency and memory really were measured, on cpu-local and nothing else.
What we are not claiming: that the planner beats a competent default recipe. The comparison above shows no such advantage, and the fixture is deliberately built so it cannot encode one. Whether planner-selected recipes beat default LoRA is an open research question with a written kill criterion; until it concludes, it stays off this page.
Build contract
What the system will and will not do
Enforced in code and covered by tests, not stated as intentions.
- 01Every number carries its lineage. There is one number renderer and it refuses to run without a label, so an unlabelled figure is unreachable rather than discouraged.
- 02Significance is measured against the prompted baseline. Not the naive zero-shot one — that is the comparison that flatters a demo and means least. McNemar is two-sided, so the gate also requires the adapted arm to be ahead: a significant regression is never a SHIP.
- 03Hardware is never extrapolated. Declare a Jetson, run on a workstation GPU, and the latency gate fails as evidence_incomplete rather than passing on the wrong evidence.
- 04A gate that could not be checked is reported, not skipped. A must-not-regress slice that never appeared in the evaluation is a NO SHIP with a reason code, not a quiet pass.
- 05Splits are scene-disjoint and leakage-gated. Hash collisions across train and eval block the build. A model that improves on every slice is usually a leaked split, so regressions are surfaced rather than filtered out.
- 06Non-commercial weights are refused. The licence is verified at the pinned commit, before planning. Unknown is never assumed permissive.
- 07Costs are reported or absent, never estimated into a result. No per-job billing from the backend means the cost is null. A guess is not an honest value.
- 08Re-executable, not "reproducible". GPU nondeterminism makes bitwise reproduction unachievable, so we publish the run-to-run spread across seeds instead.
Open the recorded training replay — architecture, loss, evaluation, verdict
Look inside a Build · recorded run
Look inside a Build.
Want the model-engineering details? Inspect the architecture, adapter, attention, recorded training and evidence behind one real build — a vision-language model adapted in one real run. The flowing activations are illustrative.
Ready to build on your data?
Ready to build on your data?
Start with a real team problem or explore the workflow with a quick prototype. Production deployments are currently available to selected design partners: tell us what you are trying to ship and what it has to run on. A person reads every one of these.
No newsletter, no drip sequence, no countdown timer. If we are not a fit for what you are building, we will say so rather than keeping you in a funnel.