Largest admitted context
Reached by the Tiny and Small synthetic candidates; Medium stopped at its declared admission boundary.
Measured evidence
Extreme-context decode ladder
A replicated current-host context ladder across three CPU-only synthetic candidates, with cache-representation counts, semantic diagnostics, and admission boundaries.
Recorded finding: Tiny and Small completed the declared ladder through 524,288 tokens, while Medium completed every safely admitted point through 131,072; 4,991 metric rows closed with zero observatory errors.
On this page
Currency and next evidence gate
Decision signals
Key metrics and controls
The recorded values, with their controls and scope.
Replicated candidate scales
20 decode trials per context and mode; synthetic CPU-only protocol.
Ordered metric rows
87,451 scalar values; 0 observatory errors.
Tiny shortlist exact contexts
Retained negative result: the faster fixed 16-token shortlist did not preserve exact sequences.
Source-linked visual evidence
What the evidence shows
Open any chart’s data table to inspect the exact values, or download the CSV.
Method
How to read this result
- Three CPU-only candidate scales were measured on one disclosed host using a synthetic all-zero K/V history.
- Tiny and Small covered powers of two from 512 through 524,288 tokens; Medium covered each safely admitted point through 131,072 tokens.
- Each context and decode mode used 20 decode trials; each context and cache profile used 10 transition trials, with 10,000 bootstrap resamples for mean confidence intervals.
- The Medium 262,144- and 524,288-token points were not attempted because the declared allocation increment, physical-memory floor, and headroom exceeded the observed admission envelope.
- Turbo and fixed-shortlist paths are retained as semantic-change and negative evidence; neither is treated as an equivalent-generation performance result.
What this result establishes
The history is synthetic all-zero K/V. These results do not establish language quality, generalisation, energy, whole-process memory, cross-host performance, end-to-end throughput, or superiority.
- Language quality or generalisation
- Energy savings
- Cross-host performance
- End-to-end training or generation throughput
- Whole-process memory savings
- Commercial or architectural superiority
Inspection and reuse
Downloads and provenance
Source data
Machine-readable summary
The recorded JSON artifact is staged from the governed public evidence pack during the build. Its currency notice determines whether it may be read as current.
Open source JSONProvenance
Build and evidence receipt
Use the public build receipt to compare the deployed site source, evidence digest, claim posture, and inference release state.
Open build receiptContinue reviewing
Related evidence
measuredbounded
Historical- Observed
- Across 20 measurements per arm, direct block-region counting retained the tested plan identity and reduced mean 65,536-token plan-construction time from 784.49 ms to 7.99 ms on the disclosed host.
- Supports
- Exact plan-identity checks and host-local construction timing for one sparse-attention planning component.
- Does not support
- This is component-level engineering evidence. It does not establish end-to-end speed, model quality, memory or energy savings, cross-host performance, or superiority.
- Next decisive evidence
- Integrate the component into a matched quality-bearing end-to-end evaluation before expanding its performance meaning.
Decision relevance: research · engineering
Review evidenceprojectionbounded
Historical- Observed
- The outlook turns architecture assumptions into inspectable resource scenarios for planning.
- Supports
- Projected active share, stored parameters, decode bandwidth, optimizer state, and weight-stream requirements.
- Does not support
- All values are projections, not measured deployment results, and depend on the published assumptions.
- Next decisive evidence
- Refresh assumptions from the approved current architecture and keep projections separate from measured results.
Decision relevance: investment · planning
Review evidence