Lead the bake-off with the answer, not the superseded one

The file ran two sweeps and the second one changed the resident model, but
the lede still opened with "Recommendation: keep Qwen3.5-0.8B". Anyone
landing on the file read the wrong conclusion and had to scroll 100 lines
to find that it had been replaced — and it contradicted CLAUDE.md, which
already says the resident model is Qwen3-1.7B.

Both sweeps are accurate, so nothing is rewritten. The lede now states the
outcome and the first sweep's verdict is scoped to what it actually tested:
it rejects LFM2.5-1.2B, which still holds. It never was a case for keeping
0.8B as the resident model.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01CGeSZxh1DCtRxmFVSYVGvJ

MODEL-BAKEOFF-31-07-2026.md

@@ -1,8 +1,18 @@
 # Resident model bake-off — 31-07-2026
 
-**Recommendation: keep Qwen3.5-0.8B.** LFM2.5-1.2B is worse at routing (52.6% vs 60.5%
-intent accuracy), and the loss is almost entirely Russian (18/61 vs 22/61 RU, while EN is a
-wash). It is also 2.4× slower. The Thinking variant is far worse again.
+**Outcome: the resident model is stock Qwen3-1.7B** (`UD-Q4_K_XL`). Two sweeps ran this
+evening and the second one changed the answer — read to the end before acting on any table
+here. [Second sweep](#second-sweep-same-evening--five-models-and-a-resident-model-change)
+is the one that holds.
+
+## First sweep — LFM2.5-1.2B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
+
+**Verdict, scoped to this pair: keep Qwen3.5-0.8B over LFM2.5-1.2B.** LFM2.5-1.2B is worse
+at routing (52.6% vs 60.5% intent accuracy), and the loss is almost entirely Russian
+(18/61 vs 22/61 RU, while EN is a wash). It is also 2.4× slower. The Thinking variant is
+far worse again. This verdict still stands as written — it rejects LFM2.5-1.2B. It is
+**not** a recommendation to keep 0.8B as the resident model; the second sweep replaced it
+with Qwen3-1.7B.
 
 Settles Vikunja **#278 / #250**.