V-405 measured reach with the classifier only, and the LLM router is the
deployed default, so 16/30 was the floor rather than the shipped behaviour.
TestReachWithLLMRouter scores the same 30 cases with the model, gated on
MAVEN_LLM_URL like TestLLMRouterBaseline.
The open question was whether the model writes a literal Praxis capability
into the fn slot and reaches a service the classifier structurally cannot. It
does not. Praxis is 0/12 with the model alone, exactly what the classifier
alone scores, and all twelve fail the same way: local, empty fn. Nothing in the
router prompt names a Praxis capability, so there is no string for it to write.
So V-516's stage-0 grammars are the only path to Praxis, not a determinism
argument. Through the cascade the model scores 28/30 with praxis 11/12, one
point above the classifier baseline. Hexis is 10/10 either way.
Overreach is 1 in both configurations, under the 4 the harness asserts.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01SoL7EBdYC5Mhz3DJd49GJy
Seventeen markdown files at the repo root, twelve of them dated one-shot
reports sitting next to CLAUDE.md. That is why stale docs read as
current: nothing in the path said which was which.
Root now keeps CLAUDE.md and AGENTS.md. Living docs move under docs/
and carry a Last verified line. Dated measurements move to docs/evals/
ISO-prefixed, and are never edited after the day, so a newer number is
a new file. The senior review moves to docs/archive/.
Every reference was rewritten across markdown, Go comments, the Makefile
and the recall fixture. The touched Go packages still build.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The phrasing eval printed "llm (0.8B, ...)" no matter which gguf
llama-server had loaded, so two runs of two different models came out
named the same and were easy to mix up when comparing.
It now asks llama-server over /v1/models, same as the router eval
already did. The helper moved to internal/llm so both share it, and it
now errors instead of returning a blank name when the id field is
missing — an unreachable server gets labelled "unknown-model", never a
plausible-looking guess.
Both eval paths stay opt-in behind MAVEN_LLM_URL; no server needed for
go test.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01CGeSZxh1DCtRxmFVSYVGvJ
The 67.1% "thinking off" column in ROUTING-EVAL-31-07-2026.md was an
artefact. It came from a hand-rolled HTTP client in the eval test that
did not send repeat_penalty, so it differed from the reference run on two
axes and the penalty was the one that mattered.
Re-scored back to back on an idle box with everything else held equal:
thinking off is identical to thinking on, case for case, same confusion
matrix, same three unparseable replies. A direct probe of the running
llama-server shows enable_thinking, thinking and reasoning_budget are all
ignored for this model on this build, so there was nothing to turn off.
No defaults changed. The misleading third configuration is removed from
internal/router/eval so its table cannot be quoted again.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01CGeSZxh1DCtRxmFVSYVGvJ
The bake-off in #278/#250 needs two models' scores side by side, and the
report names only carried the config, so the rows were indistinguishable.
ModelID reads /v1/models instead of taking a string that goes stale.
New target: make eval-models MAVEN_LLM_URL=...
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01CGeSZxh1DCtRxmFVSYVGvJ
Completes #319's comparison. Three configurations, because "the LLM router"
was ambiguous: the model alone, the cascade #320 would actually ship (stage-0
grammar → model → classifier floor), and a thinking-off diagnostic.
intent-only full RU missed-clarify p50
classifier+onnx 36.8% 36.8% 25/61 5/6 31ms
llm-only (0.8B) 48.7% 23.7% 13/61 6/6 850ms
cascade+llm (0.8B) 50.0% 32.9% 18/61 6/6 825ms
On the question asked — does the resident model route better? — yes, 50.0%
vs 36.8% intent accuracy. REARCH.md's premise holds. It costs 27x the
latency (p50 825ms vs 31ms, max 3.1s), on the same llama-server the phraser
needs, so it is a trade rather than a free win.
Three things the numbers surface that the headline hides:
query→fact x15 is the dominant failure, four times the classifier's x4 on
the same axis. routeSystem's decision order puts "сообщает или обновляет
состояние" (rule 3) above "хочет получить информацию" (rule 4), so any
utterance naming a fact key matches the earlier rule and a question about
past state reads as an assertion of it. A prompt fix, not a model limit.
The LLM router cannot clarify: llmrouter.go hardcodes Confidence 1.0, so
stage 3's gate can never fire on its decisions — 6/6 missed. With #359's
finding that the classifier's gate is miscalibrated under ONNX, neither path
currently refuses. Flipping #320 as-is removes the refusal lane.
The gap between 50.0% intent and 32.9% full accuracy is entirely slots: the
LLM path fills neither Fn nor Time (it returns Slots.Text for acts, and
Extract never runs on an LLM decision).
Also settles a hypothesis rather than leaving it in the air: thinking mode is
a non-issue under a grammar (identical score), and the grammar's unbounded
("," ws action)* repetition that ran away in an isolated smoke test does not
reproduce under the real prompt — 2 errors in 76, not 76. internal/llm
deliberately does not grow a chat_template_kwargs field.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01X5JApcrCRVGmqrxnhynSik
claude
kami