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
Numbers behind the resident-model change, plus the answer to "could a 230-350M
model do this instead" — no, and the reason is worth keeping: LFM2.5's published
instruction-following scores beat Qwen3.5-0.8B, and every one of those benchmarks
except Multi-IF is English. In Russian the 350M invents non-words and the 230M
answers in Spanish.
Also fills the row TALK-EVAL-31-07-2026.md had to void for contamination, and
corrects a wrong call I nearly made: the 1.7B's 16s p95 looked like the reasoning
trace, but the 0.8B sits at 17s in every run and the 1.7B beat it twice out of
three. The long tail is shared and is not the Thinking block.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01CGeSZxh1DCtRxmFVSYVGvJ
kami