Data refresh

What each refresh found, and what it did not publish.

ModelTree's dataset is refreshed by agents against primary sources, reviewed by an independent three-rubric panel, and gated deterministically. Every run is recorded here in full — including the runs that published nothing.

A run's working state is never committed. This page transcribes the durable record: the pull request body and the summary issue, both linked from each entry.

Runs recorded: 30
Pages fetched: 4,308
Claims proposed: 4,607
Edits published: 3,698
Items withheld: 605

Showing 21–30 of 30 runsfiltered by 2026

Clear filter

2026-08-31-ae0342

Data refresh 2026-08-31

Scope requested: Six of the seven pilot creators — anthropic, openai, meta, microsoft, alibaba-cloud and google-deepmind — each judged at the 2-of-3 pilot threshold, plus amazon scouted without producing a claim. Long-tail creators were not scouted. Re-verification only, with the model-fit guidance layer deliberately taken first so the release and family records resting on it could move.PublishedAug 31, 202633 edits posted · 1 item withheld

An agent-run, source-backed refresh under ADR 0003, and a narrow-but-deep run rather than a broad one: it set out to clear a blockage the 2026-08-30 run recorded and could not clear itself. That run had five verification dates it was entitled to advance and could not, because validate.ts refuses to let a model-fit statement be older than the fact it rests on, and the guidance layer had not been re-verified. This run re-verified the guidance layer first — all seven statements in model-fit-statements.json — which unpinned every one of the five. Six creators were scouted against 32 pages fetched and hashed this run, producing 43 claims; three rubrics voted blind on each, 42 met the 2-of-3 pilot bar and one was refused. 33 edits landed across four documents and nothing was withheld, against two withheld last run. The cost is breadth: the 33 long-tail creators were not scouted at all this run, which is the largest gap in this entry and is recorded under notCovered rather than smoothed over. No human reviewed any claim, verdict or edit.

PreflightRanTree clean, gh authenticated, and no open pull request from a previous refresh at the moment this run started. Anchor 356989e9, selected by merge-base with refs/remotes/origin/main and computed by the gate rather than supplied — requestedBase was null. That is a re-anchor: the run opened on 36ce8b1b, and run 2026-08-31-651a1c merged as PR #665 while this one was between its review and publish stages, moving main under it and touching three of the same documents. The branch was brought onto the new main, the dataset reset to main’s version wholesale rather than hand-merged, and every claim re-checked against it — all 43 currentValues still held, so #665 had touched none of the records this run changes. gate-source-approval, gate-dataset, npm run validate, gate-scope and gate-ledger were then all re-run against the new anchor rather than carried over. The approved-origin catalogue parsed cleanly at 356989e9: 217 dataset sources and 18 catalogues across 19 profile files, yielding 46 approved origins. npm resolved to a PowerShell shim the machine execution policy refuses to run; npm.cmd ran and reported 11.9.0. The policy was not changed to work around it — that would be a machine-wide security change made to satisfy a probe.
ScoutRanSeven pilot creators scouted against 32 pages fetched and hashed this run; six produced claims and amazon produced none. Every quote was sliced from a page read during the run and verified as a byte-exact substring of the saved body before the claim was built — raw bytes for markdown and plain text, rendered text for HTML. Two candidate quotes failed that check and were corrected rather than kept: one had a curly apostrophe where the page has an ASCII one, and one fell under the gate’s 24-character minimum. Appending .md to an OpenAI or Anthropic docs URL returns clean markdown of the same page on the same already-approved origin, which is how those client-rendered catalogues were read at all; the provenance rubric was asked to rule on that convention explicitly and accepted it. ai.google.dev was unreachable from this machine on all three attempts — fetch failed, not an HTTP status — so deepmind.google was used instead, an origin the dataset already carries.
ReviewRanThree rubrics — provenance, consistency, editorial — voted independently on all 43 claims across 18 reviewer invocations, each in its own context and each given only its own rubric text, the claim, the evidence, the relevant dataset slice and the creator profile vocabulary. No reviewer saw another’s rubric, the threshold, the running tally, or the scout’s reasoning. 42 claims met the 2-of-3 pilot bar and one was refused 2-of-3. Three of the 42 passed over a single dissent, and all four minority opinions are published verbatim in the pull request body. No claim was edited and re-reviewed to chase a verdict, and the coordinating agent cast no vote and overruled none.
GatesRangate-evidence and gate-source-approval ran across all six bundles before anything was applied, since gate-source-approval anchors on the committed dataset and running it afterwards would be asking the run’s own writes whether the run’s own sources are trustworthy. gate-dataset, npm run validate, gate-scope and gate-ledger ran afterwards. No gate was skipped, forced, or re-run to obtain a different answer, no threshold was lowered, and nothing was pushed to main. gate-scope reported changed: 5, empty: false, outOfClass: [], so the change sat inside the ADR 0003 qualifying class as ADR 0006 widened it.
PublishRanOpened as a pull request carrying the full evidence trail — every claim, every quote with its content hash, all 129 verdict rationales, and the gate-source-approval anchor block — and merged by GitHub via --auto once web-ci went green. The agent did not merge, and did not use --admin.
DeployRanPages deploy confirmed after the merge. See the deployment reference below.

What was found

Scouts: 7
Pages fetched and hashed: 32
Claims proposed: 43

Claims per creator bundle, with the review threshold its profile set
Creator	Policy	Threshold	Claims
anthropic	pilot	2-of-3	12
openai	pilot	2-of-3	12
meta	pilot	2-of-3	10
microsoft	pilot	2-of-3	3
alibaba-cloud	pilot	2-of-3	4
google-deepmind	pilot	2-of-3	2

What those claims proposed to do
Kind	Count	Effect
Unchanged	20	A recorded fact re-read from its primary source and found to still hold. 19 reached the 2-of-3 pilot threshold and all 19 applied, advancing 9 release verifiedAt dates, 1 family verifiedAt and 7 model-fit statement verifiedAt dates to 2026-08-31 — some records carried more than one confirming claim. Nothing was withheld. One was refused by the panel.
Change	23	A source page re-read this run, moving its lastCheckedDate to 2026-08-31. All 23 were accepted, and 16 distinct source records moved — several pages carried more than one claim.

Not covered

The 33 long-tail creators were not scouted this run. That is the largest gap in this entry: the 2026-08-30 run covered all 33, and this one traded that breadth for depth on the guidance layer that was blocking pilot-creator re-verification. Their records carry no verification date from this run and nothing here says their facts still hold.
amazon was scouted and produced no claim. aws.amazon.com/nova/ is client-rendered and the fetched body carried placeholder text where the model listing should be, so no quote on it could support a fact about a model. The one recorded Amazon release, amazon-nova-2-sonic, was verified 2026-08-30 and did not need this run.
ai.google.dev was unreachable from this machine on every attempt — fetch failed rather than an HTTP status, so it is a network fact about this runner and not evidence the page is gone. Seven of the eight recorded Google releases rest on sources on that host and therefore carry no verification date from this run. Only google-gemini-pro-page, on the reachable deepmind.google, was re-read.
Breadth remains uncovered by design and is unchanged from the previous run: OpenAI’s realtime, transcribe and tts models, the roughly twenty Cohere Command models against the one recorded, Microsoft’s MAI-Code-1.1-Flash, MAI-Image-2.5, MAI-Voice-2 and MAI-Transcribe-1.5, and Amazon’s Nova Act, Nova Forge and Nova Multimodal Embeddings. Each is breadth work with its own sourcing burden, not re-verification.
Microsoft MAI-Image-2.6 was again deliberately not added, on the same grounds the 2026-08-30 run recorded: its only availability statement names a product and a serving platform rather than the creator’s own release, so accessType has no creator-level statement and status is ambiguous between preview and current. The ambiguity is left explicit rather than resolved by guess.

What was evaluated

Reviewers: 18
Verdicts cast: 129
Accepted by panel: 42
Rejected by panel: 1

Deterministic gates and required checks — 8 of 8 checks passed. Exit 0 is a pass; exit 2 means the gate could not run and is never treated as one.
Check	Scope	Exit	Result
`gate-evidence.mjs`	6 claim bundles	0	Pass43 claims admissible with complete panels across all six bundles, 23 applicable after the panel. Every bundle declared policy pilot and the gate independently derived threshold 2 from tools/updater/profiles, so no bundle’s declared policy went unchecked.
`gate-source-approval.mjs`	6 claim bundles	0	PassZero proposed sources across all six bundles: every cited source was already in the dataset at anchor 356989e9, on one of the 46 origins approved there. No source was refused and no origin was introduced, so the run approved nothing of its own. Run before any edit was applied.
`gate-dataset.mjs`	web/src/data	0	PassValidated the documents raw.ts composes with zero failures after the edits were applied.
`npm run validate`	web/	0	Pass2361 tests executed across 104 files with all reporting results; astro check reported 0 errors and 0 warnings. This is the gate that pinned five records last run, and it passed them this run because the guidance beneath them had been re-verified first. It also failed intermittently on this runner for a reason that is not this change, recorded here rather than re-run until green: two to four tests in LineageModelDrawer.interaction.test.tsx and ModelTreeExplorer.interaction.test.tsx hit the 5000 ms vitest timeout, with different test names failing on each attempt. Both files pass 17 of 17 in isolation with this change applied, and pristine origin/main fails the same way with more failures than this branch, so the cause is worker contention on the machine and not the data. Constraining vitest to two workers produced the clean run recorded here. No timeout was raised, no test was skipped, and no gate was called passed on a run that had not finished.
`gate-scope.mjs`	branch vs merge-base	0	Passchanged: 5, empty: false, outOfClass: []. Anchored on 356989e9, the merge base the gate computed rather than one supplied to it. The fifth file is this ledger entry, which ADR 0006 put in the qualifying class so a run can record itself.
`gate-ledger.mjs`	this entry vs the diff it describes	0	Passtranscription: false — this entry was written by the run it describes, in the same commit as the data, rather than transcribed afterwards. That is the gap issue #419 recorded on three consecutive runs.
`ci-preflight.mjs`not required	selected from the branch diff	0	PassRun locally from the repository root before the branch was pushed.
`web-ci`	the pull request	—	PassGitHub performed the merge via --auto on this check going green; the agent did not merge.

Applied over a recorded dissent

These met their threshold and were applied. The objection stands on the record and was not overruled.

anthropic-family-claude-4-5-status-unchangedProvenanceOutvoted 2-of-3 and applied. The overview page’s "Legacy models (still available)" list names Claude Opus 4.5 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 but not Claude Haiku 4.5, which appears instead in the current-lineup table on the same page. So the 4.5 generation’s members straddle both lists, and a quote establishing that one member is legacy does not establish a status for the family as a whole.
meta-llama-4-scout-context-window-unchangedProvenanceOutvoted 2-of-3 and applied. The 10M figure sits in a table-row fragment whose column headers are not carried in the quote, so identifying which column the number belongs to requires an inference the quoted text does not itself supply.
meta-fit-llama-4-scout-context-window-reverifyProvenanceOutvoted 2-of-3 and applied, on the same reasoning as the release-level context-window claim it rests on: the underlying table-row fragment does not carry the column headers that would fix which figure is the context window.

Posted 33 edits

33 edits across 4 documents, a net change of 0 records.

Dataset documents this run changed
Document	Before	After	What changed
`model-fit-statements.json`	7	7	All 7 statements had verifiedAt moved to 2026-08-31: fit-claude-haiku-4-5-release-current, fit-claude-haiku-4-5-family-legacy, fit-claude-mythos-5-limited-availability, fit-gpt-5-superseded, fit-llama-4-scout-self-hosting, fit-llama-4-scout-mau-threshold and fit-llama-4-scout-context-window. This document was taken first on purpose. validate.ts forbids a fit statement from being older than the fact it rests on, so while these sat at 2026-08-15 and 2026-08-18 they pinned the records beneath them — which is exactly why the previous run had to withhold two release dates it had otherwise earned. No statement text or judgement changed; only the date on which each was last checked against its evidence.
`releases.json`	92	92	9 verifiedAt dates moved to 2026-08-31 — anthropic-claude-haiku-4-5, anthropic-claude-mythos-5 and meta-llama-4-scout from 2026-08-15, openai-gpt-5 from 2026-08-18, openai-gpt-image-2 from 2026-08-27, microsoft-fara-1-5-27b, alibaba-qwen3-8-27b and alibaba-qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b from 2026-08-28, and openai-gpt-5-6-sol from 2026-08-29. The first three and openai-gpt-5 are the records the previous run could not move. No release was added or removed and no other field changed.
`families.json`	64	64	One verifiedAt moved: anthropic-claude-4-5 from 2026-08-15 to 2026-08-31, unpinned by fit-claude-haiku-4-5-family-legacy being re-verified first. The family status value itself was re-read and unchanged, and it carried the run’s one accepted-over-dissent family claim.
`sources.json`	217	217	16 lastCheckedDate values moved to 2026-08-31, one per page re-read this run. No source was added: gate-source-approval recorded zero proposed sources across all six bundles, so every date moved on a record that already existed. Sources are listed here rather than under the posted records below, which carry links and so hold only the collections the site routes.

Not posted 1 item

Rejected by the review panel

releases/google-gemini-3-1-pro-preview.verifiedAtRefused 2-of-3 under the pilot bar, the run’s only rejection. Two rubrics found the evidence too weak for a status claim: the specification block flattens to an unseparated run of text once tags are stripped, so "Status" and "Preview" are adjacent rather than demonstrably paired, and the page’s marketing name "3.1 Pro" does not distinguish the Gemini API serving from the Vertex AI serving. The record keeps 2026-08-27. Its source record still had lastCheckedDate advanced, because that claim is about the page having been read rather than about what the page proves.Blocked by provenance rubriceditorial rubric

What this run does not prove

No human reviewed any claim, verdict or edit in this run before it merged and deployed. That is what ADR 0003 authorises and what it costs.
The three rubrics are three instances of the same model family reading the same page, so they share a failure mode: a source that is itself wrong can carry all three. The panel defends against wrong-but-invalid and against unevidenced inference; it is a weak defence against a primary source that is confidently mistaken.
Three claims were accepted over a provenance dissent and are published as such. Two of them — the Llama 4 Scout context window and the fit statement resting on it — turn on a table-row fragment whose column headers the quote does not carry. The majority judged the row unambiguous in context; the dissent judged the fragment insufficient on its own. A reader who agrees with the dissent should treat those two verifiedAt advances as the weakest edits in this run.
A green run proves the recorded facts still match the pages this run read. It does not prove those pages are complete, and it says nothing at all about the 33 long-tail creators or the seven Google releases whose sources could not be reached.
pagesFetched counts the 32 pages that were fetched successfully. Three further attempts against ai.google.dev failed outright and are excluded from that figure rather than counted as reads.
reviewers and verdictsCast are derived rather than quoted: 6 bundles x 3 rubrics = 18 reviewer invocations, and 43 claims x 3 rubrics = 129 verdicts, which reconciles with the per-rubric verdict files.
This run and run 2026-08-31-651a1c overlapped. That one merged first, as PR #665, while this one was mid-flight, so this run had to re-anchor from 36ce8b1b onto 356989e9 and re-run every gate. The re-anchor was clean — all 43 claims still matched the dataset afterwards — but two refreshes racing on the same documents is the failure mode the preflight check is meant to prevent, and the check only looks for an open pull request at the moment the run starts. Two same-day runs appear in this ledger as a result.

Follow-ups — proposed, not fixed

The long-tail sweep this run skipped should be the next run’s first priority, not its second. Two consecutive runs covering different subsets is fine; a pattern of pilot-only runs would let the long tail rot while every entry still reads green.
ai.google.dev could not be reached from this runner at all. If that is a durable block rather than a transient one, the Google releases need an alternative approved origin recorded in the reviewed catalogue — deepmind.google covers only the Pro page — or seven records will keep aging out with no way to re-verify them.
The model-fit guidance layer pinned five records for a full run before this one cleared it. Re-verifying model-fit-statements.json first should become the standing order for a re-verification run rather than a lesson each run rediscovers, since guidance is cheap to re-check and blocks everything beneath it.
Client-rendered marketing pages — aws.amazon.com/nova/ this run, and the OpenAI and Anthropic docs before the .md convention was found — yield placeholder text to a plain fetch. The .md suffix that works for OpenAI and Anthropic docs is worth recording in the reviewed catalogues so future runs do not rediscover it, and an equivalent for the AWS pages is worth looking for.
The preflight check for a racing refresh only looks for an open pull request at the moment the run starts, so it cannot see one opened afterwards — which is exactly what happened here with PR #665. A run that re-checks immediately before it opens its own pull request, or that simply expects to re-anchor, would lose less work than one that discovers the race at merge time.
Status claims sourced from flattened specification tables were refused this run for the second time in two runs, on the same structural grounds as the previous run’s context-window refusals. Either the scout should quote enough surrounding structure to fix the label-value pairing, or status re-verification should target a page that states it in prose.

2026-08-31-651a1c

Long-tail family depth, tranche 1 of abdeslam-menacere/ModelTree#651

Scope requested: Six creators from abdeslam-menacere/ModelTree#651 tranche 1: alibaba-cloud, zhipu-ai, moonshot-ai, baidu, tencent, 01-ai. Breadth rather than re-verification — asking whether each has a further documented family generation, not re-checking facts already recorded. No creator outside the tranche was scouted and no existing record was edited.PublishedAug 31, 20269 edits posted · 7 items withheld

A source-backed breadth run over six creators that each carried exactly one model family — alibaba-cloud, zhipu-ai, moonshot-ai, baidu, tencent and 01-ai — asking of each whether it has further documented family generations. Two do, on evidence that meets the bar: Alibaba published dated Qwen3.5 and Qwen3.6 news in the QwenLM/Qwen3.8 repository README, and 01.AI dated the original Yi series in 01-ai/Yi. Four do not, and the reason is the same one refresh run 2026-08-30-605b1a hit: their pages carry no dated release statement at all. The GLM, Kimi, Hunyuan and ERNIE repository READMEs have no dated news list, every date on their Hugging Face cards is Hub createdAt or lastModified metadata rather than a creator statement, and the z.ai GLM-5 blog URLs return 200 with a client-rendered shell under 600 bytes and no text. Nine claims were proposed, three rubrics voted independently on every one, and all nine met their creator threshold — the six Alibaba claims against a 2-of-3 pilot bar, the three 01.AI claims unanimously against the 3-of-3 long-tail bar. Three met it over a recorded provenance objection about mapped vocabulary fields, and are applied rather than overruled. Four creators are withheld, on the record and without softening. No human reviewed any part of the research; the run hands off at a reviewable commit for the independent review and QA gates.

PreflightRanAnchor 8e8c319e, selected by merge-base with refs/remotes/origin/main and computed by each gate rather than supplied — requestedBase was null in every report. The approved-origin catalogue parsed cleanly at that anchor: 214 dataset sources and 18 profile catalogues out of 19 profile files, yielding 46 approved origins; the one profile listed without a catalogue is tools/updater/profiles/generic/long-tail.json, which configures no origins. Both npm and drydock were probed in both shim forms before either was relied on or ruled out: the bare names resolve to PowerShell shims the execution policy refuses, while npm.cmd reports 11.9.0 and drydock.cmd reports 0.1.0. Both are installed and blocked in bare form, not absent, and the execution policy was not changed. Dependencies were installed with npm ci; package-lock.json is unmodified.
ScoutRanSix creators scouted against 48 pages, every one fetched and hashed during the run — retrieval is "fetch" on all 43 evidence entries and no claim rests on a search snippet. Each quote was verified to be literally present in the hashed body it is attributed to, by a builder that throws rather than emitting an unverifiable pair. The decisive finding is negative and general: model cards do not state release dates. The only pages in this tranche that date a release in the creator's own words are two GitHub README news lists, QwenLM/Qwen3.8 and 01-ai/Yi. Red herrings ruled out rather than used: PaddlePaddle/ERNIE's dated "Recent updates" dates the ERNIEKit toolkit and not a model; the Kimi-K2.5 changelog entry for 2026.1.29 is a system-prompt removal; Kimi-K3's "July 9, 2026" dates an evaluation branch; and Tencent's "Following the Hy3 Preview launch in late April" is about the preview and is not a valid partial date.
ReviewRanThree rubrics — provenance, consistency, editorial — voted independently on all nine claims, each blind to the others and to the scout's reasoning, seeing the claim bundle and the committed dataset only. 27 verdicts cast, every one with a rationale, all published verbatim. Consistency and editorial accepted all nine. Provenance accepted six and objected to three, in each case that a quote naming "Type: Causal Language Model with Vision Encoder" or open-weight availability does not by itself force the mapped modality or category vocabulary. All three sit in the alibaba-cloud bundle, whose threshold is 2-of-3 because alibaba-cloud is the only creator of the six with a reviewed profile on disk in tools/updater/profiles. They therefore met their threshold over a recorded objection and were applied, not overruled; they are listed in dissents. No claim was revised and re-reviewed to chase a verdict, no reviewer was re-run, and no threshold was adjusted.
GatesRangate-evidence and gate-source-approval ran across all six bundles before anything was applied, in that order and after the panel rather than before it. gate-dataset, npm run validate, gate-scope, gate-ledger and ci-preflight.mjs ran afterwards. No gate was skipped, forced, or re-run to obtain a different answer. gate-scope reports exit 1 by design and is the one number worth reading twice — see its entry in evaluated.gates and the caveats.
PublishRanNine edits applied across three dataset documents in dependency order — sources, then families, then releases — and committed on the dock branch for abdeslam-menacere/ModelTree#651 together with this entry. Nothing was pushed, no pull request was opened and no merge was attempted: this run is a Drydock dock and its work ends at a reviewable commit, with the pull request and the merge belonging to the coordinating session after the independent review and QA gates have passed against that commit.
DeployNot runNothing was pushed or merged by this run, so no Pages deploy was triggered and none could be observed. Recorded as not-run rather than not-applicable: a deploy is applicable to a dataset change, it simply has not happened yet at the time this entry was written.

What was found

Scouts: 6
Pages fetched and hashed: 48
Claims proposed: 9

Claims per creator bundle, with the review threshold its profile set
Creator	Policy	Threshold	Claims
alibaba-cloud	pilot	2-of-3	6
01-ai	long-tail	3-of-3	3
zhipu-ai	long-tail	3-of-3	0
moonshot-ai	long-tail	3-of-3	0
baidu	long-tail	3-of-3	0
tencent	long-tail	3-of-3	0

What those claims proposed to do
Kind	Count	Effect
Add	9	Three sources, three families and three releases: the Qwen3.5 and Qwen3.6 generations with one sourced open-weight variant each, and the original Yi series with Yi-34B-Chat.

Not covered

The other dated Qwen3.5 and Qwen3.6 variants — Qwen3.5-122B-A10B, Qwen3.5-35B-A3B and Qwen3.5-27B on 2026-02-24, and the 2026-04-22 Qwen3.6 entry. The QwenLM/Qwen3.8 news list dates them, but no model card was fetched and hashed for them this run, so no release record could carry a sourced parameter count, context window or licence.
The other dated Yi releases — Yi-34B-200K on 2023-11-05, Yi-VL on 2024-01-23, Yi-9B on 2024-03-06 and Yi-9B-200K on 2024-03-16. Same reason: dated in 01-ai/Yi, but no card fetched for them here.
Lineage between the new and existing families. Nothing wires Qwen3.5 to Qwen3.6 to the committed Qwen3.8, or the new Yi family to the committed Yi-1.5, because predecessorIds and successorIds on an existing record would be a change claim against a record this tranche was not asked to touch.
The 34 creators outside this tranche, including the other 26 that still carry exactly one family.

What was evaluated

Reviewers: 3
Verdicts cast: 27
Accepted by panel: 9
Rejected by panel: 0

Deterministic gates and required checks — 6 of 7 checks passed. Exit 0 is a pass; exit 2 means the gate could not run and is never treated as one.
Check	Scope	Exit	Result
`gate-evidence`	all six claim bundles, before any dataset document was touched	0	Passpassed=true on each of the six. alibaba-cloud: 6 claims, 6 applicable, threshold 2 under the pilot policy. 01-ai: 3 claims, 3 applicable, threshold 3 under long-tail. The four withheld bundles carry 0 claims and pass trivially. The threshold was derived by the gate from the reviewed-profile set on disk and not from any bundle's policy field.
`gate-source-approval`	all six claim bundles, anchored at merge-base 8e8c319e	0	Passpassed=true on each of the six, over 43 citations. Anchor 8e8c319e, selectedBy "merge-base with refs/remotes/origin/main", requestedBase null, 214 dataset sources and 46 approved origins. Inherited sources: qwen3-8-repository, osi-approved-licenses, 01-ai-yi-repository. Proposed sources: qwen3-5-397b-a17b-model-card, qwen3-6-35b-a3b-model-card, 01-ai-yi-34b-chat-model-card. Every citation sits on an origin the anchor already approves — huggingface.co, github.com and opensource.org — so the run introduced no new origin and approved nothing of its own.
`gate-dataset`	web/src/data after the nine claims were applied	0	Passpassed=true, failures empty. Counts after: 217 sources, 48 publishers, 40 organizations, 64 families, 92 releases.
`npm run validate`	web/ — the full vitest suite plus Astro and TypeScript diagnostics	0	Pass2361 tests across 104 files. It failed on the first run, and the failure was real rather than incidental: the comparison picker index budget. Recorded in caveats, because the repair reaches outside the dataset.
`gate-scope`not required	the branch diff against merge-base 8e8c319e	1	FailExit 1, and the correct answer. The diff reaches web/src/lib/comparison.test.ts, which is outside the nine documents ADR 0003 lets merge unattended, so this change is not eligible for an unattended merge and the gate says so. It is recorded as not required because this run never sought that route: it is a Drydock dock handing off to the independent review and QA gates and then to a human-opened pull request, where a scope refusal is a fact about eligibility rather than a blocked merge. The change was not trimmed to satisfy the gate; the reason it reaches out of class is in the caveats.
`gate-ledger`	this entry against the branch diff, anchored at merge-base 8e8c319e	0	Passpassed=true. The three declared documents match the three dataset documents the branch changed, in both directions, and their record counts were counted at the anchor and in the working tree rather than taken from this entry.
`ci-preflight`	repository root — the pull-request checks this branch's diff actually triggers	0	PassSelected and ran the checks the diff triggers, measured from the computed merge-base: 5 files changed, 3 of 7 local check groups selected, all three passing — web-ci, skills-ci and source-link-health-tests. It does not cover the networked link-health sweep or the second Python interpreter, and says so on every run; a green preflight is therefore not a green CI. It was run twice: the first run reported web-ci as failing with "npm run test" exiting 1, and the second passed with 104 test files and 2,361 tests. See the caveats — the first result was never reproduced and is recorded rather than explained away.

Applied over a recorded dissent

These met their threshold and were applied. The objection stands on the record and was not overruled.

qwen3-6-family-addProvenanceThe date and first-open-weight-variant facts are quoted, but no attached quote for this claim supports the proposed multimodal-generalist category. The quoted Qwen3.6 text mentions open-weight availability and coding/repository reasoning, not vision or multimodality.
alibaba-qwen3-5-397b-a17b-release-addProvenanceThe date, weights, Apache licence, OSI badge, parameters, and 262,144-token context are quoted. But "Type: Causal Language Model with Vision Encoder" does not by itself force inputModalities ["text","image"] or the complete output modality list.
alibaba-qwen3-6-35b-a3b-release-addProvenanceThe model-card quotes support open weights, Apache licensing, parameters, and native context. The attached "Type: Causal Language Model with Vision Encoder" quote does not force the proposed text+image input modalities or exclude other vision inputs.

Posted 9 edits

9 edits across 3 documents, a net change of 9 records.

Dataset documents this run changed
Document	Before	After	What changed
`sources.json`	214	217	Three Hugging Face model cards: Qwen3.5-397B-A17B, Qwen3.6-35B-A3B and 01-ai/Yi-34B-Chat. They are not listed individually under records because the refresh page resolves links for release and family records only, and a source record listed there would link nowhere.
`families.json`	61	64	The Qwen3.5 and Qwen3.6 generations, and the original Yi series distinct from the committed Yi-1.5.
`releases.json`	89	92	One sourced variant per new family, being the one whose model card was fetched and hashed this run.

Each document links to the file as this run left it, not as it stands today.

Records added

Qwen3.5in the treefamiliesqwen3-5First release 2026-02-16, per the QwenLM/Qwen3.8 news list.
Qwen3.6in the treefamiliesqwen3-6First release 2026-04-16, per the same news list.
Yiin the treefamilies01-ai-yiFirst release 2023-11-02, the original Yi series; the committed Yi-1.5 family stays separate.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17Bpassportreleasesalibaba-qwen3-5-397b-a17b397B total, 17B active, 262,144 native context, Apache-2.0.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3Bpassportreleasesalibaba-qwen3-6-35b-a3b35B total, 3B active, Apache-2.0.
Yi 34B Chatpassportreleases01-ai-yi-34b-chatDated 2023-11-23 by the 01-ai/Yi news list. Parameters and context window deliberately omitted, matching the committed Yi-1.5 34B Chat record.

Not posted 7 items

Verification date deliberately held back

zhipu-ai-further-generationsGLM-5, GLM-5.2, GLM-5.3 and GLM-5.3-Flash all exist as Hugging Face repositories under zai-org, and none of the pages fetched states a release date. The GLM repository READMEs carry no dated news list — scans for YYYY-MM-DD, YYYY.MM.DD and month-name forms returned nothing — and every date visible on the cards is Hub createdAt or lastModified metadata, which refresh run 2026-08-30-605b1a already ruled out as a release date. https://z.ai/blog/glm-5 and https://z.ai/blog/glm-5.3 return HTTP 200 but are client-rendered shells under 600 bytes with no text, and https://z.ai/blog is 404. A family cannot be added without a sourced firstReleaseDate, so nothing was proposed.Blocked by no dated release statement on any fetched pagez.ai blog pages render client-side and serve no text
moonshot-ai-further-generationsKimi-K2.5 and Kimi-K3 exist as Hugging Face repositories under moonshotai, and neither card nor the MoonshotAI GitHub organisation pages state a release date. The two date-like strings found were checked and are not release dates: the Kimi-K2.5 changelog entry for 2026.1.29 records a system-prompt removal, and Kimi-K3's "July 9, 2026" dates an evaluation branch. Every other date is Hub metadata.Blocked by no dated release statement on any fetched page
baidu-further-generationsERNIE-5.0 material and further ERNIE-4.5 variants exist under the baidu Hugging Face namespace, and no fetched page dates a release. PaddlePaddle/ERNIE does carry a dated "Recent updates" list, but it dates the ERNIEKit toolkit rather than a model, which is a different entity and was not used.Blocked by no dated release statement on any fetched pagethe only dated list found dates a toolkit, not a model
tencent-further-generationsHunyuanImage-3.0, HunyuanOCR and Hy3/Hy4 material exist under Tencent-Hunyuan, and no fetched page dates a release. The nearest statement, "Following the Hy3 Preview launch in late April", is about the preview rather than the release and "late April" is not a valid partial date in this schema. Recording it as one would be the guess this run exists to refuse.Blocked by no dated release statement on any fetched page"late April" is not a representable date

Sources conflict, so no value changed

01-ai-yi-licence-conflictThe Yi-34B-Chat card states in prose that "The code and weights of the Yi series models are distributed under the Apache 2.0 license", while the 01-ai/Yi README records "2023-11-23: The Yi Series Models Community License Agreement is updated to v2.1". Both quotes are attached to the release claim and the disagreement is left explicit in the record's prose rather than resolved. The structured licence follows the model card, which is the artefact the release record is about.Blocked by two primary pages of the same creator disagree

Out of the run’s reach

qwen3-5-and-qwen3-6-additional-variantsThe QwenLM/Qwen3.8 news list dates Qwen3.5-122B-A10B, Qwen3.5-35B-A3B and Qwen3.5-27B to 2026-02-24 and a further Qwen3.6 entry to 2026-04-22. The dates are sourced, but no model card was fetched and hashed for those variants this run, so no release record could carry a sourced parameter count, context window or licence. One release per new family was proposed rather than an unsourced set.Blocked by no model card fetched for these variants this run
01-ai-yi-additional-variantsThe 01-ai/Yi news list dates Yi-34B-200K to 2023-11-05, Yi-VL to 2024-01-23, Yi-9B to 2024-03-06 and Yi-9B-200K to 2024-03-16. Same reason as the Qwen variants: dated, but no card fetched for them here.Blocked by no model card fetched for these variants this run

What this run does not prove

The outcome is recorded as "published" because that is the only value the schema admits for a run that changed dataset documents, and it is not the whole truth at the time of writing. This run is a Drydock dock: its nine edits are applied and committed on a branch, and nothing has reached main. No pull request existed when this entry was written, which is why references names no pull request of this run's own — the pull-request reference below is the change whose merge set this run's baseline, labelled as such. Whoever opens the pull request should add it, its merge commit and the Pages deploy to references.
npm run validate failed on its first run, on the comparison picker index page-weight budget, and the repair reaches outside the dataset into web/src/lib/comparison.test.ts. The budget was raised from 10,240 to 11,264 bytes as a deliberate page-weight decision, on the test message's own terms: measured at merge-base 8e8c319e the index was 10,115 bytes over 89 releases (113.65 per release) and at the tip it is 10,449 over 92 (113.58 per release), so the catalogue simply grew and the per-release figure did not move. The scale-invariant guard of 128 bytes per row was not touched and keeps 14 bytes of headroom. That one file is why gate-scope exits 1 and why this change cannot merge unattended. It is also worth knowing that the merge-base already sat 125 bytes under the old budget — about one release — so this was going to land on whichever tranche came first.
ADR 0005's accepted limit applies to every hash and quote here: gate-evidence checks that a content hash is well-formed and that a quote is long enough, never that either matches the remote page, and both are self-authored by the run. What compensates for it in this run is mechanical but local: every page was fetched to disk, hashed from the bytes on disk, and every quote was checked to be literally present in the body it is attributed to, by a builder that throws rather than emit an unverifiable pair. That makes the pairs internally consistent. It does not make them independently verified, and a later reader who wants certainty must refetch.
Three claims were applied over a provenance objection, all of them about controlled-vocabulary fields — the modality lists and one family category. The objection is recorded in full in dissents and is not answered here. A reader who thinks provenance was right should read those three records as the weakest in this change.
status: "current" on the three new releases is the least directly sourced mapping in the run. No page states a lifecycle state in words; the value rests on the news lists saying the weights are released and available and on the absence of any deprecation or legacy notice. Qwen3.5 and Qwen3.6 are both superseded by the committed Qwen3.8, and the original Yi by Yi-1.5, so a reader who reads "current" as "newest" will be misled. It means "not withdrawn".
The input and output modality lists on the two Qwen releases record text and image while both cards also carry a video-input quickstart. The competing signal is disclosed in the source notes and the record summaries rather than resolved, and it is the substance of two of the three provenance objections.
Four of the six creators were withheld, and no negative claim is being made about them: the run did not establish that GLM, Kimi, Hunyuan or ERNIE have no further generations, only that no page it fetched states a release date for one. A page it did not fetch, or a page rendered server-side rather than in the browser, could settle any of the four.
Every fetch happened during one run on 2026-08-31 and each contentHash is a snapshot of that moment. Hugging Face and GitHub pages change without notice, so a refetch that produces a different hash is expected rather than evidence of an error.
One test result in this run was not reproducible. The first ci-preflight run reported web-ci failing with "npm run test" exiting 1, and printed no failing test name that was captured. Every subsequent run was green — a second ci-preflight with 104 test files and 2,361 tests passing, a bare npm run test with the same figures and the coverage verifier confirming all 104 discovered files reported, and two npm run validate runs. Four green runs do not turn a red one into a flake with any certainty, so it is recorded here as unexplained rather than dismissed, and a reviewer seeing web-ci fail once on this branch should suspect it is the same thing and not a new one.

Follow-ups — proposed, not fixed

The committed release dates for moonshot-ai-kimi-k2-instruct (2025-07-11), zhipu-ai-glm-4-5-air (2025-07) and baidu-ernie-4-5-300b-a47b-pt (2025-06-28) are each exactly the Hugging Face Hub createdAt value of the cited repository, which refresh run 2026-08-30-605b1a explicitly ruled out as a release date. This run found that while looking for where those dates came from, did not fix it because the records are outside this tranche's scope, and records it here so it is not found a third time.
Lineage between generations is unwired: nothing connects Qwen3.5 to Qwen3.6 to Qwen3.8, or the Yi family to Yi-1.5, although the Yi-1.5 card states it was continuously pre-trained from Yi. Wiring it means editing existing records and is worth its own issue.
The remaining creators of the 32 that carried exactly one family are untouched by this tranche; 30 still do after it.
The comparison picker index budget has now been raised three times as the catalogue grew, each time by 1,024 bytes. Whether the row itself should shrink — four string fields per release, none of them abbreviated — is a page-weight question nobody has asked yet, and asking it once would be cheaper than raising the number a fourth time.

2026-08-30-c0b6e9

Data refresh 2026-08-30

Scope requested: Every creator in organizations.json — all 33 — with pilot creators judged 2-of-3 and long-tail creators 3-of-3. Re-verification only: confirming recorded facts against their primary sources and moving verification dates forward, not adding breadth.PublishedAug 30, 202636 edits posted · 9 items withheld

An agent-run, source-backed refresh under ADR 0003, and a re-verification run rather than a discovery one: not a single recorded fact value changed. All 33 creators in organizations.json were scouted, each against at least one primary page fetched and hashed this run, and 20 of them produced claims — 45 in total. Three rubrics voted blind on every one; 38 met their creator’s threshold and 7 long-tail claims died one vote short. 36 edits landed across two documents, all of them a verification date moving to 2026-08-30, before GitHub merged PR #597 on a green web-ci and Pages deployed successfully. The most useful finding is a refusal rather than an edit: five licence re-verifications failed because a model card saying “Apache-2.0” does not source the osiApproved flag recorded beside it, which is a claim about what OSI decided. No human reviewed any part of it. This entry was transcribed after the fact — see the caveats.

PreflightRanAnchor 7ca5802e, selected by merge-base with refs/remotes/origin/main and computed by the gate rather than supplied — requestedBase was null. The approved-origin catalogue parsed cleanly at that anchor: 198 dataset sources and 12 profile catalogues out of 13 profile files, yielding 41 approved origins. The one profile listed but not drawn on is tools/updater/profiles/generic/long-tail.json, which configures no origins. The anchor is therefore full rather than silently narrowed.
ScoutRanAll 33 creators were scouted, each against at least one primary page fetched and hashed this run; every quote in the pull request body was sliced from a page read during the run rather than recalled. Three creator hosts refused automated fetches and were worked around on approved origins instead: openai.com/news/ (403) via openai.com/news/rss.xml, ai.meta.com/blog/ (403) via huggingface.co/meta-llama, and x.ai/news (403) via docs.x.ai/developers/models. No claim rested on an unreachable page. 13 of the 33 creators produced no claim, because nothing they publish had changed in a way this run could evidence.
ReviewRanThree rubrics — provenance, consistency, editorial — voted independently on all 45 claims, each blind to the others and to the scout’s reasoning. Consistency and editorial accepted every claim; provenance accepted 38 and rejected 7. No claim was revised and re-reviewed to chase a verdict. Every verdict and rationale is published verbatim in the pull request body.
GatesRangate-evidence and gate-source-approval ran across all 20 bundles before anything was applied; gate-dataset, npm run validate, gate-scope and ci-preflight.mjs ran afterwards. No gate was skipped, forced, or re-run to obtain a different answer, no threshold was lowered, and nothing was pushed to main. gate-scope reported changed: 2, empty: false, outOfClass: [], so the change sat inside the ADR 0003 qualifying class and was eligible to auto-merge.
PublishRanPR #597 carried the full evidence trail and was merged by GitHub via --auto once web-ci was green, not by the agent. Merge commit 2f490766, merged 2026-08-30T11:37:33Z.
DeployRanPages deploy run 33309402080 on 2f490766 succeeded and https://abdeslam-menacere.github.io/ModelTree/ served HTTP 200. No revert needed.

What was found

Scouts: 33
Pages fetched and hashed: 45
Claims proposed: 45

Claims per creator bundle, with the review threshold its profile set
Creator	Policy	Threshold	Claims
01-ai	long-tail	3-of-3	2
ai2	long-tail	3-of-3	2
amazon	pilot	2-of-3	2
anthropic	pilot	2-of-3	7
baidu	long-tail	3-of-3	2
bytedance-seed	long-tail	3-of-3	2
cohere	long-tail	3-of-3	2
databricks	long-tail	3-of-3	2
deepseek	long-tail	3-of-3	2
eleutherai	long-tail	3-of-3	2
hugging-face	long-tail	3-of-3	2
ibm	long-tail	3-of-3	2
lg-ai-research	long-tail	3-of-3	2
moonshot-ai	long-tail	3-of-3	2
nvidia	long-tail	3-of-3	2
sarvam-ai	long-tail	3-of-3	2
snowflake	long-tail	3-of-3	2
upstage	long-tail	3-of-3	2
xai	long-tail	3-of-3	2
zhipu-ai	long-tail	3-of-3	2

What those claims proposed to do
Kind	Count	Effect
Unchanged	24	A recorded model fact re-read from its primary source and found to still hold. 17 reached their threshold; of those, 15 advanced a release verifiedAt to 2026-08-30 and 2 were withheld. The other 7 were refused by the provenance rubric.
Change	21	A source page re-read this run, moving its lastCheckedDate to 2026-08-30. All 21 were accepted unanimously and all 21 were applied.

Not covered

13 of the 33 creators scouted produced no claim at all. That is an honest zero per creator rather than a skipped stage, but it also means their records carry this run’s attention without carrying its verification date.
Three creator hosts refused automated fetches this run — openai.com/news/ (403), ai.meta.com/blog/ (403) and x.ai/news (403). Approved alternatives were used and no claim rested on an unread page, but the announcement indexes themselves went unread.
Breadth remains uncovered by design: OpenAI’s realtime, transcribe and tts models, roughly twenty Cohere Command models against the one recorded, Microsoft’s MAI-Code-1.1-Flash, MAI-Image-2.5, MAI-Voice-2 and MAI-Transcribe-1.5, and Amazon’s Nova Act, Nova Forge and Nova Multimodal Embeddings. Each is breadth work with its own sourcing burden, not re-verification.
Microsoft MAI-Image-2.6, announced 2026-08-10, was deliberately not added. Its only availability statement names a product and a serving platform rather than the creator’s own release, so accessType has no creator-level statement and status is ambiguous between preview and current. It also has no recorded family. The ambiguity was left explicit rather than resolved by guess.
xai grok-4.20 appears on docs.x.ai only in a passing note that logprobs are unsupported by "grok-4.20 and newer", never as a listed model. That is not enough to create a release.

What was evaluated

Reviewers: 60
Verdicts cast: 135
Accepted by panel: 38
Rejected by panel: 7

Deterministic gates and required checks — 7 of 7 checks passed. Exit 0 is a pass; exit 2 means the gate could not run and is never treated as one.
Check	Scope	Exit	Result
`gate-evidence.mjs`	20 claim bundles	0	Pass45 claims admissible with complete panels across 20 bundles. Thresholds were applied per profile — 2 for a pilot creator, 3 for a long-tail one — and no bundle omitted its policy.
`gate-source-approval.mjs`	20 claim bundles	0	PassZero proposed sources across all 20 bundles: every cited source was already in the dataset at anchor 7ca5802e, on one of the 41 origins approved there. No source was refused, and no origin was introduced.
`gate-dataset.mjs`	web/src/data	0	Pass419 records validated across the documents raw.ts composes.
`npm run validate`	web/	0	Pass990 tests executed; astro check reported 0 errors. This is the gate that caught the two withheld verification dates, by refusing guidance older than the evidence beneath it.
`gate-scope.mjs`	branch vs merge-base	0	Passchanged: 2, empty: false, outOfClass: []. Anchored on 7ca5802e, the merge base the gate computed rather than one supplied to it.
`ci-preflight.mjs`not required	web-ci, skills-ci, source-link-health-tests	0	PassRun locally before the branch was pushed; all three workflows predicted green.
`web-ci`	PR #597	—	PassSUCCESS. GitHub performed the merge via --auto on this check going green; the agent did not merge.

Posted 36 edits

36 edits across 2 documents, a net change of 0 records.

Dataset documents this run changed
Document	Before	After	What changed
`releases.json`	82	82	15 verifiedAt dates moved to 2026-08-30 — anthropic-claude-fable-5, anthropic-claude-opus-5 and anthropic-claude-sonnet-5 from 2026-08-26; ai2-olmo-2-7b, amazon-nova-2-sonic, cohere-command-a-plus-05-2026, deepseek-v4-pro, nvidia-nemotron-4-340b-base and xai-grok-4-6 from 2026-08-28; baidu-ernie-4-5-300b-a47b, bytedance-seed-oss-36b-instruct, databricks-dbrx-instruct, hugging-face-smollm3-3b, ibm-granite-4-2-30b and lg-ai-research-exaone-3-5-7-8b-instruct from 2026-08-29. No release was added or removed and no other field changed, so the record count is identical either side of the merge commit.
`sources.json`	198	198	21 lastCheckedDate values moved to 2026-08-30, one per page re-read this run. No source was added: the approved-source gate recorded zero proposed sources, so every date moved on a record that already existed. Sources are listed here rather than under the posted records below, which carry links and so hold only the collections the site routes.

Each document links to the file as this run left it, not as it stands today.

Not posted 9 items

Rejected by the review panel

releases/01-ai-yi-1-5-34b-chat.verifiedAtRefused 2-of-3 under the long-tail unanimous bar. The Hugging Face card states "License: apache-2.0", but the recorded license object also asserts osiApproved, which is a claim about what OSI decided and needs an OSI source. The licence name cannot stand in for it.Blocked by provenance rubric
releases/eleutherai-pythia-12b.verifiedAtRefused 2-of-3 on the same osiApproved grounds: the Pythia-12B card states the licence name and nothing about OSI approval status.Blocked by provenance rubric
releases/snowflake-arctic-instruct.verifiedAtRefused 2-of-3 on the same osiApproved grounds; the Arctic card carries an apache-2.0 tag and no OSI provenance.Blocked by provenance rubric
releases/sarvam-ai-sarvam-m-v1.verifiedAtRefused 2-of-3 on the same osiApproved grounds. Its source record still had its lastCheckedDate advanced, because that claim was about the page being read rather than about what the page proves.Blocked by provenance rubric
releases/zhipu-ai-glm-4-5-air.verifiedAtRefused 2-of-3. The GLM-4.5-Air card states the models are released under the MIT open-source licence, which supports the licence name and still does not cite OSI approval for the osiApproved flag.Blocked by provenance rubric
releases/moonshot-ai-kimi-k2-instruct.verifiedAtRefused 2-of-3. The card states "Context Length 128K" while the dataset records 131072. The quote does not force the binary 128x1024 reading, so the stored precision is not directly sourced — an assumed multiplier, not a stated number.Blocked by provenance rubric
releases/upstage-solar-pro-preview-instruct.verifiedAtRefused 2-of-3 on the same binary-multiplier grounds: the page states "a maximum context length of 4K" and the dataset records 4096.Blocked by provenance rubric

Verification date deliberately held back

releases/anthropic-claude-mythos-5.verifiedAtHeld at 2026-08-15 despite the claim reaching its threshold. validate.ts forbids guidance dated before the evidence beneath it, and fit-claude-mythos-5-limited-availability, verified 2026-08-15, rests on this release. Advancing the release would have stranded that fit statement behind its own evidence; npm run validate failed exactly this way when it was attempted. Re-dating guidance this run gathered no evidence for would have been the larger claim, so the write was withheld rather than the rule weakened.Blocked by fit-claude-mythos-5-limited-availabilityvalidate.ts
releases/anthropic-claude-haiku-4-5.verifiedAtHeld at 2026-08-15 for the same reason, against fit-claude-haiku-4-5-release-current. Two accepted claims applying nothing is the honest outcome here: the panel judged the model facts still true, and the dataset still refuses to say so until the guidance resting on them is re-verified too.Blocked by fit-claude-haiku-4-5-release-currentvalidate.ts

What this run does not prove

This entry was transcribed after the run rather than by it. The run could not write its own line: refresh-runs.json is not one of the documents raw.ts composes, so gate-scope.mjs correctly reports it out of class, and including it would have cost the run its auto-merge. That gap is issue #419 and it has now recurred on every published run.
pagesFetched is the summary issue’s approximate figure of "~45 pages" recorded as 45. Neither durable record states an exact count, so this number is the only one available rather than a counted one.
reviewers and verdictsCast are derived, not quoted: 20 bundles x 3 rubrics = 60 reviewer invocations, and 45 claims x 3 rubrics = 135 verdicts, which reconciles with the published rubric tallies of 45, 45 and 45. Neither field has a verbatim source in the pull request body or the summary issue.
The pull request body says "36 records, 38 changed lines". The merge commit shows 36 insertions and 36 deletions across the two documents, and the per-record diff reconciles to exactly 15 releases and 21 sources. Where the two disagree this entry follows the commit, as #419 already recommended after the same class of discrepancy on the 2026-08-27 run.
A green run proves the recorded facts still match the pages this run read. It does not prove those pages are complete, that the 13 creators without claims are unchanged, or that anything on a host that refused the fetch is still current.
No human reviewed any claim, verdict or edit in this run before it merged and deployed.

Follow-ups — proposed, not fixed

osiApproved blocks routine licence re-verification for long-tail creators — five claims died on it this run. Either the recorded license objects need an OSI source attached once, or re-verification needs to target a licence sub-field a model card can actually source.
Context windows recorded as exact integers cannot be re-verified against pages that state them as "128K" or "4K". Two claims died on the assumed 1024 multiplier.
Three creator announcement indexes refuse automated fetches — openai.com/news/, ai.meta.com/blog/ and x.ai/news. The working alternatives this run used are worth recording in the reviewed catalogues so future runs do not rediscover them.
Microsoft MAI-Image-2.6 needs a creator-level source before it can be recorded, following the precedent set for microsoft-mai-thinking-1.

2026-08-30-605b1a

Long-tail breadth tranche 2026-08-30 — Aleph Alpha, AI Singapore, Nous Research, Reka AI, Liquid AI, Xiaomi

Scope requested: Six creators with no reviewed profile in tools/updater/profiles — Aleph Alpha, AI Singapore, Nous Research, Reka AI, Liquid AI and the Xiaomi LLM-Core team — under the long-tail unanimous 3-of-3 policy, restricted to the 42 origins already approved at the merge-base. No profile catalogue was edited and no origin was added: widening the trust boundary is deliberately a human act.Ran, changed nothingAug 30, 20260 edits posted · 10 items withheld

Researched six long-tail creators to take the catalogue from 34 organizations to 40 and published none of them. Every fact was fetched and hashed from origins this repository already approves — huggingface.co, github.com, arxiv.org and opensource.org — never read from a search result, and gate-source-approval passed on all six bundles, so origin discipline was not the blocker. The panel was the blocker, and beneath it a structural one. Under the unanimous 3-of-3 long-tail bar the provenance rubric rejected 46 of 54 claims, most of them because the record asserted fields no attached quote stated: lifecycle status, modality lists, downloadable weights, and above all a release date. No approved-origin page states a release date for any of these six models. No model card states a release date for the model it describes. All six carry dates, and every date found belongs to a category that is not a release date: a training-data cutoff (Aleph Alpha, cutoff date 04/2023); Hub revision tags (AI Singapore, Current Version: `14.04.2025` at line 29, and a revision="18.12.2024" argument at line 123 under the comment "Specify the revision here"); paper years in BibTeX blocks (Nous Research, Liquid AI and Xiaomi, year={2025}); benchmark names (Reka AI, AIME-2024; Xiaomi, AIME 2024 and AIME 2025 across six table rows); values inside worked examples and generated output (Liquid AI, "date": "2023-11-20" in a tool-call sample; Aleph Alpha, the founding of Rome and a 2016 census figure in sample completions); EU legal instrument numbers that only resemble slashed dates (Aleph Alpha, Directive (EU) 2019/790 and Regulation (EU) 2016/679); and a changelog line dating a different model (Xiaomi, [2025.05.30], which dates MiMo-7B-RL-0530 and not the MiMo-7B-RL this run targeted). Each is named with its card and line so the exclusion can be checked. This states what the dates found are and why none is a release date; it is not a claim that no other date exists on these pages. The Hub API states createdAt, which is repository creation and not a stated launch; arXiv states when a paper was submitted, which is a fact about the paper and not the model; and the two GitHub repository READMEs that do carry dated release news date other models — SEA-Guard and a March 2026 embedding family for AI Singapore, and MiMo-7B-RL-0530 rather than MiMo-7B-RL for Xiaomi. releaseSchema requires releaseDate, and the schema is explicit that a field no approved source states means the record is withheld rather than guessed, so no release could be written for any creator. The eight claims the panel did accept were three sources, three publishers and two conflict records; applying them would have left sources cited by nothing, which validate.test.ts forbids, and a creator with no release renders in neither branch of the tree. They were dropped rather than applied. The dataset is unchanged and this entry is the only edit.

PreflightRanRe-measured the trunk baseline from the committed data rather than quoting it: 34 organizations, 55 families, 83 releases, 202 sources, 42 publishers. Enumerated the approved origin set from gate-source-approval itself, by running it over a zero-claim probe bundle, which reports anchors.approvedOrigins whether it passes or fails: 42 origins at merge-base c9e01df.
ScoutRanMade 56 fetches over 48 distinct pages — 39 initial targets across four batches, 1 ad-hoc re-check of the AI Singapore card, 6 systematic date re-checks which deliberately re-pulled bytes already held rather than trusting the stored copy, 6 fetches around the Hermes 3 withholding, being four Hermes-4 records, the Hermes-3 LICENSE whose 404 caused it and one arXiv abstract, and 4 GitHub organization and repository pages — of which 8 re-fetched a page already held — across model cards, Hub API records, config.json files, arXiv abstracts, OSI licence pages and GitHub organization and repository pages. The pagesFetched field below records that 56: it counts fetch operations that left a stored body, not distinct pages, of which there are 48. The 8-page gap is the re-fetches, and the AI Singapore card accounts for three of the stored bodies on its own — the original, the ad-hoc re-check and the systematic one — all three byte-identical at sha256:2d4396287f5d. The count is of page bodies only: date-recheck.json sits in the same folder and is the manifest of that re-check rather than a fetched page, so it is excluded. Every quote in every bundle was machine-checked to be a literal substring of the exact bytes whose sha256 the evidence records; the generator refuses to emit a bundle otherwise and caught six bad quotes on its first pass, one of which had only ever looked verified because it sat behind a function the prototype never called.
ReviewRanThree reviewers, one vote each, launched in parallel and given the claim, its evidence, the dataset slice and one rubric — never the chair reasoning, another reviewer output, or a running tally. 162 verdicts over 54 claims. The editorial reviewer first returned a single 138-character rationale repeated 54 times and was sent back for claim-specific rationales with its votes explicitly untouched; the rewrite changed no vote. Provenance accepted 8, consistency 54, editorial 54.
GatesRangate-evidence exit 1 on all six bundles, deriving the 3-of-3 threshold itself from the reviewed-profile set on disk rather than from any policy field in the bundles. gate-source-approval exit 0 on all six. gate-dataset exit 0 on the unchanged dataset. gate-scope reports this log entry out of the ADR 0003 qualifying class, which is expected rather than a problem to work around.
PublishNot applicableNo claim reached the dataset, so there was nothing to publish. The dock agent opened no pull request and recorded no gate verdict on its own work; this run ends at the review gate and hands off to an independent reviewer.
DeployNot applicableNothing was merged, so nothing deployed.

What was found

Scouts: 6
Pages fetched and hashed: 56
Claims proposed: 54

Claims per creator bundle, with the review threshold its profile set
Creator	Policy	Threshold	Claims
Aleph Alpha	long-tail	3-of-3	8
AI Singapore	long-tail	3-of-3	9
Nous Research	long-tail	3-of-3	10
Reka AI	long-tail	3-of-3	8
Liquid AI	long-tail	3-of-3	10
Xiaomi LLM-Core Team	long-tail	3-of-3	9

What those claims proposed to do
Kind	Count	Effect
Add	52	Six creators as organization, family, release and publisher records, with 28 supporting source records. None reached the dataset.
Conflict	2	Two disagreements between primary sources, recorded rather than smoothed: the LFM2-1.2B context window and the Hermes-4-14B parameter total. Both were accepted unanimously and both describe releases that were not published.

Not covered

No creator-owned domain was consulted for any of the six, because none is an approved origin. What those newsrooms say about release dates, lifecycle status and licensing is therefore unknown to this run rather than absent from the world.
The /compare page-weight guards in web/src/lib/comparison.test.ts were never exercised against new data, because no release was added. Whether six more creators would breach the per-release or total budget remains untested and is still an open question for whoever owns that guard.
Hermes-3-Llama-3.1-8B was withheld before review rather than judged by the panel, so no verdict exists on it.
Only one review round was run. The rubric remedy for an unquoted field is to attach the quote, and for the fields other than releaseDate that remedy was not attempted, because releaseDate alone is sufficient to withhold every release record.

What was evaluated

Reviewers: 3
Verdicts cast: 162
Accepted by panel: 8
Rejected by panel: 46

Deterministic gates and required checks — 4 of 6 checks passed. Exit 0 is a pass; exit 2 means the gate could not run and is never treated as one.
Check	Scope	Exit	Result
`gate-evidence`	All six claim bundles, annotated with the panel verdicts.	1	FailRefused 46 claims that did not reach the unanimous long-tail bar. The gate derived the 3-of-3 threshold from the reviewed-profile set on disk rather than from the policy field in the bundles, which is the behaviour ADR 0002 requires, and it reached the same answer as the panel independently.
`gate-source-approval`	All six claim bundles against the 42 origins approved at merge-base c9e01dffbf0d9bc92d0b6ee39f286e22120d7246.	0	PassEvery citation in every bundle sits on an already-approved origin, and no proposed source rests on a creator-owned domain. This is the one gate that passed cleanly on all six, and it is worth recording that the run did not fail on origins: it failed on what the quotes state.
`gate-dataset`	The committed dataset, unchanged by this run.	0	PassThe dataset is unchanged and remains internally coherent: 202 sources, 42 publishers, 34 organizations, 55 families, 83 releases. No orphaned source, no dangling reference, no release predating its family.
`gate-scope`	The branch diff from its merge-base to its tip.	1	FailReports web/src/data/refresh-runs.json as outOfClass, which is correct and expected rather than a problem to work around: the ADR 0003 qualifying class is the dataset documents raw.ts composes, and the refresh log is deliberately not one of them, so any run that logs itself leaves the class by construction. The gate was not modified, the file was not added to ALLOWED_PATHS, and the log entry was not dropped to stay in class. The consequence is that this change is outside ADR 0003 and merges the ordinary way, with a human — which is what this run wanted anyway, since it published no data.
`npm run validate`	web/ — the full vitest suite and Astro/TypeScript diagnostics.	0	PassRun from web/ after this entry was written, so it covers the entry itself against refresh-log-schema.ts as well as the unchanged dataset.
`node .github/scripts/ci-preflight.mjs`	The pull-request checks this branch diff actually triggers, measured from the merge-base.	0	PassRun from the repository root. It does not cover the networked link-health sweep or the second Python interpreter, which it prints on every run and which remain unrun here.

Posted 0 edits

Nothing reached the dataset. No branch, no commit, no pull request.

Not posted 10 items

Rejected by the review panel

aleph-alphaPharia-1-LLM-7B-control. The parameter count and the 8,192-token sequence length are quoted from Aleph Alpha own card, but no attached quote states a release date, a lifecycle status, a modality set or that the weights are downloadable, and the OSI licence index heading does not by itself establish that the Open Aleph License is absent from the register. The organization record additionally inferred a German identity from a Heidelberg location and did not establish the relationship between the names "Aleph Alpha GmbH", "Aleph Alpha Research" and "IPAI Aleph Alpha Research GmbH", all three of which appear across the sources.Blocked by provenance
ai-singaporeLlama-SEA-LION-v3-8B-IT. The card describes AI Singapore in its own words as a national programme supported by the National Research Foundation and hosted by the National University of Singapore, which is what typed the organization research-lab, but the release record rested on an unquoted date, status, modality set and weights statement, and the 128k-to-131072 reconciliation was not supported by an attached quote.Blocked by provenance
nous-researchHermes-4-14B. Licence and parameter assertions were not carried by the attached quotes, the website was not quoted, and the release date, status, modalities and weights were unstated. The config source and the publisher record were accepted; the records that would have made them mean something were not.Blocked by provenance
reka-aiReka Flash 3. The card states that the model was trained from scratch, which is why no derivation was recorded despite the configuration declaring a Llama architecture class, but the publisher attribution, the website and the release date, status, modality and weights fields were all unquoted.Blocked by provenance
liquid-aiLFM2-1.2B. The organization identity and the LFM Open License name were not carried by the attached quotes, and the release date, modalities and status were unstated. The GitHub organization is Liquid4All rather than a name matching the model prefix, which the record noted but did not resolve from a quote.Blocked by provenance
xiaomiMiMo-7B-RL. The author attribution, the governance relationship between the LLM-Core team and Xiaomi, and the web endpoints were unquoted, as were the release date, status, modalities and weights. The GitHub organization XiaomiMiMo publishes neither a website nor a location, which is why the record proposed the GitHub profile itself as the organization website rather than asserting xiaomi.com.Blocked by provenance

Accepted by the panel, then dropped

accepted-sources-and-publishersEight claims were accepted unanimously by all three rubrics and none was applied. Six of them were adds: three source records — the Hermes 4 14B and Reka Flash 3 configuration files and the Aleph Alpha GitHub organization profile — and three publishers, Nous Research, Liquid AI and AI Singapore. The remaining two were the conflict records described below. The accepted set spans five creators and completes none of them: Nous Research alone reached both a publisher and a configuration source; Liquid AI and AI Singapore reached a publisher and no source; Reka AI and Aleph Alpha reached a source and no publisher; Xiaomi reached nothing. With no accepted release or organization to cite them, the sources would have been orphaned, which validate.test.ts forbids outright, and a publisher publishing nothing is a record that renders nowhere. This is the same shape of outcome recorded for Mistral AI and Cohere in the 2026-08-27 run.Blocked by ai-singaporealeph-alphanous-researchreka-ailiquid-ai

Verification date deliberately held back

nous-research-hermes-3-llama-3-1-8bWithheld before review and never put to the panel. This model was the tranche original Nous candidate and a prior session had flagged it as possibly uncitable; the flag was checked on all three of its legs and held. The card carries exactly one licence statement, the bare slug "license: llama3", while the same card declares its base model to be meta-llama/Meta-Llama-3.1-8B and the Hub tags declare base_model:meta-llama/Llama-3.1-8B. The slug names the Llama 3 licence and the base names Llama 3.1, and https://huggingface.co/NousResearch/Hermes-3-Llama-3.1-8B/raw/main/LICENSE returns HTTP 404, so nothing on an approved origin resolves the disagreement. An open-weight release requires a licence object, and guessing which licence the slug meant is exactly what this dataset refuses. Hermes-4-14B was carried instead, where the slug apache-2.0 and the base Qwen/Qwen3-14B agree.Blocked by licenseSchema

Sources conflict, so no value changed

liquid-ai-lfm2-1-2b-context-windowThe LFM2-1.2B card states a context length of 32,768 tokens while the repository config.json sets max_position_embeddings to 128000. The conflict was recorded with the creator own stated figure taken as the reading, and was accepted unanimously. It describes a release that was not published.Blocked by liquid-ai
nous-research-hermes-4-14b-parameter-totalThe same Hub object reports safetensors.parameters.BF16 as 14768307200 and safetensors.total as 424960 for a model shipping six shards over 29.5 GB. The BF16 figure was taken as the reading. For four of the other five creators the two figures agree exactly, and in each of those four the total also equals the sum of the whole parameters block: AI Singapore 8030261248, Liquid AI 1170340608, Reka AI 20905482240 and Xiaomi 7833409536. The fifth, Aleph Alpha Pharia-1-LLM-7B-control, carries no safetensors block at all in its Hub API record, so it offers no comparison rather than an agreeing one; counting it among the agreeing records would have been the same absence-read-as-agreement error this entry documents elsewhere. For Hermes-4-14B the parameters block sums to the BF16 figure and not to the total, which is what identifies the total as the anomaly. Accepted unanimously; describes a release that was not published.Blocked by nous-research

What this run does not prove

A withheld tranche is a real outcome of the policy rather than a failure of the sources. Everything above rests on pages fetched from origins this repository already approves, and the run reports six creators it could not source rather than six it stretched a citation to reach.
The blocker is structural and no amount of better scouting reaches it. Every one of the 42 approved origins is either a generic host — github.com, huggingface.co, arxiv.org, opensource.org, storage.googleapis.com — or the own domain of a creator already in the catalogue. A creator that is not yet in the catalogue therefore has no approved domain of its own, so the announcement page that would state its release date is precisely the page the trust boundary excludes. Approving a new origin is a human act by design, so a refresh agent cannot close this gap from inside a run. What that blocks is the unattended refresh path, and only that. The gates skill names two remedies for extending the trust boundary — add the origin to a profile catalogue, or cite it in a change that takes the ordinary path — and the second requires no origin to be approved in advance, because a human reviews the citation on the way in. This entry should not be read as saying the catalogue cannot grow. It says a run like this one cannot grow it, and the reference below points at where the ordinary path is being taken instead.
The statement about dates on these cards was wrong twice before it was right, and both attempts are recorded here rather than quietly replaced. The first said the cards carry no date-bearing line at all; the scan behind it matched month names and ISO forms only, so a dotted Current Version: `14.04.2025` fell straight through. The second said five of the six carry none; the widened scan behind that one also discarded every line longer than 300 characters, so a 480-character paragraph naming AIME-2024 and a 328-character changelog line beginning [2025.05.30] never reached the pattern at all. Two unrelated mechanisms, one a regex gap and one a length filter, produced the same false sentence, which is the evidence that widening the scan a third time would not have fixed it. What the sentence claimed was the defect, not the tool behind it. A scan supports a statement about what it matched and can never support a statement about what is absent, because the forms it does not encode are invisible to it by construction: abbreviated and non-English month names, quarters and half-years, relative dates, epoch seconds, dates in HTML attributes, JSON-LD or YAML front matter, and dates that appear only inside images. The corrected sentence is therefore carried by the categorisation of the dates actually found, each named with its card and line, and by no scan returning nothing. Both errors were caught by fetching the six cards rather than reading the diff, QA finding the first and review the second, and the AI Singapore card hashed byte-identical to the copy the run already held, sha256:2d4396287f5df1e4993d8a0e22b6abdf7b6262b4323476946eb8519be5f3ef7d, so neither error was a matter of the page having changed. The dates this entry names, and the fragments quoted around them, were each re-read from those stored bytes at the line cited — fourteen checks, all of which hold. One did not at first: the AI Singapore value is written inside backticks on the card and this entry had dropped them, corrected here so that a reader grepping the card for what this entry prints finds it.
The issue framed part of this tranche as closing a non-transformer gap. That framing is factually wrong and was not carried into any claim. The LFM2-1.2B card describes the architecture in its own words as a hybrid model with multiplicative gates and short convolutions, ten double-gated short-range convolution blocks and six grouped query attention blocks, and the config lists full_attn_idxs [2,5,8,10,12,14] with 32 attention heads and 8 key-value heads. LFM2 contains attention. Writing the issue framing into the dataset would have published a false claim beside a citation that contradicts it.
Nous Research was typed company rather than community. The community clause needs a source showing that contributors outside the entity own appointment chain decide its releases, and nothing consulted states that; the ordered procedure then falls through to the company fallback. This is a classification the panel judged rather than a fact any source states.
The panel is three model instances reading the same pages, so 2-of-3 or 3-of-3 buys independence of reasoning and not independence of training. A source that is itself wrong could carry all three. The provenance rubric was also the only one of the three that rejected anything here, which is worth noticing rather than smoothing: consistency and editorial each accepted all 54, so the unanimous bar was carried entirely by one rubric.
The editorial verdicts were rewritten once. The first pass returned a single sentence repeated across all 54 claims, which fails the requirement that a rationale state what decided it; the reviewer was asked for claim-specific rationales with its votes explicitly untouched, and it changed none. The rewritten rationales are the ones recorded, and a reader should know they were produced on a second pass. They are also not fully claim-specific: the 54 recorded editorial rationales are 28 distinct strings, nine of them reused - two covering six claims each, four covering four, one covering three and two covering two - where provenance and consistency each recorded 54 distinct ones. The account of the first pass is itself unverifiable from what survives, because the rewrite overwrote it, so both that a single rationale was repeated 54 times and that no vote changed are taken from the run record rather than from an artefact a later reader can inspect. That absence was checked across every directory this run wrote rather than only the one holding the verdict files: the sole artefact predating the rewrite is the packet the reviewers were given, which carries the claims and the dataset slice and records no vote or rationale at all. This is the one statement in this entry that no preserved byte can settle.
This entry was written by the run rather than transcribed after it, which is why gate-scope reports the branch out of the ADR 0003 class. The entry records gate results for npm run validate and ci-preflight that were observed after the entry itself was written, so those two lines describe the tree as committed rather than the tree as it stood when the earlier gates ran.
The account of what the panel accepted was wrong in two places and is corrected here rather than silently replaced. The withheld entry for the accepted sources and publishers stated three sources and three publishers and then named four of each, filing the Liquid AI record as a source and the Reka AI record as a publisher when the bundles have them the other way round; and the follow-up resting on it named Nous Research, Reka AI and Liquid AI as each having reached both a publisher and a configuration source, when only Nous Research did. The aggregate arithmetic was right throughout — 54 claims, 162 verdicts, 8 accepted and 46 rejected — because the error lay inside the eight, so no check that reconciled totals could see it. The first defect was visible as a disagreement between the summary and the detail; the second contradicted nothing in the entry and was found only by counting the accepted claims out of the six bundles again. Both were settled against the bundles rather than by making one field agree with another, which is the only method that could have settled the second.
The evidence behind this entry is verifiable, and an earlier version of this caveat said the opposite. Every quote was machine-checked as a literal substring of the exact bytes whose sha256 the bundle records; the six bundles survive; and the fetched page bodies survive too, 56 of them across the six run directories this run wrote, 50 in their pages folders and 6 more re-fetched into the date re-check folder, covering all 31 of the 31 URLs cited as evidence, with no cited URL left without a stored body. By origin they are 38 from huggingface.co, 11 from github.com, 4 from arxiv.org and 3 from opensource.org; the 38th is the re-checked AI Singapore card, which is stored without a host prefix in its filename and so is easy to drop from a breakdown that reads filenames. The earlier version said bodies survived for 19 of 43 pages covering 15 of 31 cited URLs, that every preserved body came from huggingface.co, and that nothing this entry says about a github.com, arxiv.org or opensource.org page could be checked against bytes held here at all. That was false in every part. It was measured over one run directory while the run had been writing to six, and the 19 huggingface.co bodies it found were the true contents of that directory rather than of the evidence set. Three statements it listed as resting on the run record are in fact held in preserved bytes: SEA-Guard appears on the stored AI Singapore GitHub README at lines 948 and 949, and at line 911 as SEA-GUARD in capitals inside a table link, which is a different string and would not be found by a reader grepping for the spelling this entry uses; the March 2026 SEA-LION-Embedding suite is at line 947 of the same page, and MiMo-7B-RL-0530 appears on the stored Xiaomi GitHub README at lines 792 and 799, line 792 being the changelog line dated [2025.05.30]. So are two facts asserted elsewhere in this entry: the Hermes-4-14B conflict figures are in the stored Hub API body, which records safetensors.total as 424960 and safetensors.parameters.BF16 as 14768307200, and the Hermes-3-Llama-3.1-8B LICENSE 404 is stored as a 15-byte body reading Entry not found, the 404 response being itself the artefact. What remains true is the limit ADR 0005 records: gate-evidence validates the shape of a contentHash and a quote and does not, and cannot as built, verify that the digest is the hash of the page at the url, because the gate fetches nothing. The bodies kept here close that gap for a reader who holds them; they never closed it for the gate, which did not look at them.
Eight statements in this entry were wrong when first written, counting the two attempts at the date claim separately, and all eight failed in the same way: a correct aggregate carrying a wrong decomposition. Two were absence claims about dates that the scans behind them could not support. One stated the right totals for what the panel accepted — three sources, three publishers and two conflict records — while filing the Liquid AI record as a source and the Reka AI record as a publisher, which the bundles have the other way round. One called 48 fetches 48 unique pages, when the run had in fact made 56 fetches over 48 pages, so the figure it was corrected to was itself too low. One said a single editorial rationale covered six claims when two of them do. One said the safetensors figures agree for the other five creators, when they agree for four and the fifth carries no safetensors block to compare at all, which is an absence read as an agreement. In every case the aggregate itself held: 54 claims, 162 verdicts and 8 accepted against 46 rejected are all correct as written, and every check that reconciled them confirmed them. That is precisely why the errors survived, because a total ties whichever way its parts are attributed, so a check that reconciles totals is structurally blind to a permutation inside one. Each was found by recounting against the artefacts rather than by reading the entry, and the accepted-claim inversion contradicted nothing in the entry at all, so no amount of internal comparison could have surfaced it. The fourth says the most about what the gates cover. It was present, in three places, in the tree the review gate read at commit 473dac1, and review passed that tree without examining pagesFetched at all. That was not carelessness: the same review verified the accepted-claim decomposition down to per-creator attribution out of the bundles, because that claim had been named for it, and it did not generalise from one wrong count to checking every count. Coverage followed the brief it was given. A fifth was then found by the coordinating session walking the run directories instead of trusting this entry, and it is the most self-implicating of the set. The thesis of this entry is that an absence claim must be a matched set - that saying no approved source states a release date obliges you to name every date found and say what each one is instead. Its own absence claim about its own evidence did the thing it warns against. It counted preserved bodies in the pages folder of one run directory, found all 19 of them to be huggingface.co, and stated universally that no github.com, arxiv.org or opensource.org body had ever been persisted, when 18 such bodies were sitting in four of the five sibling directories the same run had written that evening. The aggregate held again - 19 huggingface.co bodies really were in the folder that was looked at - and the decomposition was again what was wrong. The review gate confirmed that claim rather than catching it, reporting independently that all 19 were huggingface.co, because it inherited the directory scope instead of re-deriving it. That is the sharpest result this run produced about what agreement is worth: independence of reviewers does not give independence of scope, and two parties looking in the same wrong place agree perfectly. The correction was then widened twice more, once from one run directory to six and once again from the pages folders to the date re-check folder, and neither widening began in a disagreement about a number. Each came from asking what else the run had written rather than whether a figure was right, which is a different question and is the one that found every instance. The last of them was caught by the review gate, and that balances the account. Correcting the coverage caveat moved the preserved-body count from 19 to 56, but found.pagesFetched and the sentence explaining it kept the figures computed before the widening, so the entry asserted 48 fetches over 43 distinct pages in one place and 56 stored bodies in another, and named the first as correct as written. A stored body is the product of a fetch, so the two could not both stand. Review found that contradiction; neither this run nor the session coordinating it did. The lesson is narrower and more useful than checking the counts again: when a correction changes the size of a set, every number computed over that set has to be re-derived, including numbers in structured fields the correction did not edit. The prose and the field were two views of one measurement, and only one of them moved. Of the eight defects, two were caught by gates that had been pointed at them, one by the review gate looking where it had not been told to look, three by this run auditing its own artefacts and two by a reader who widened the measurement. The general form is that a document internal agreement is not evidence about the world, and where it is the only evidence available the honest report is unverified rather than consistent.

Follow-ups — proposed, not fixed

A new creator cannot be added by an unattended refresh from the approved origin set alone, because releaseDate is required and only a creator own announcement states one. Three routes stay open and this run took none of them, because all three are outside what a refresh agent may do: approve each new creator origins in a profile catalogue as a reviewed human step before its refresh runs; add the creator through a change that takes the ordinary path, where a human reviews the citation and no origin has to be approved in advance; or change what the schema requires of a release whose date no approved source states.
The six bundles and all 162 verdicts are reproducible artefacts of this run but live under a git-ignored directory, so they disappear with the machine. The fetched bytes are kept in full there: 56 body files across six run directories cover all 31 of the URLs cited as evidence, so every citation here can be checked against stored bytes while that directory exists and only by re-fetching a live page that may have changed once it does not. If the origin question above is answered, the research does not need repeating from scratch, but only if it is captured before that happens.
Five of the six creators reached at least one unanimously accepted record: Nous Research a publisher and a configuration source, Liquid AI and AI Singapore a publisher only, Reka AI and Aleph Alpha a source only, and Xiaomi none. Nous Research has the least left to fetch and would be the cheapest to revisit first once a date-bearing origin is available. None of them is close to publishable in the meantime, because every release still needs a date that no approved origin states.

2026-08-29-34e751

Data refresh 2026-08-29

Scope requested: Every creator in organizations.json — ai2, ai21-labs, amazon, anthropic, alibaba-cloud, cohere, deepseek, google-deepmind, meta, microsoft, mistral-ai, moonshot-ai, nvidia, openai, tii, xai, zhipu-ai — under the pilot 2-of-3 policy.PublishedAug 29, 20263 edits posted · 4 items withheld

An agent-run, source-backed refresh under ADR 0003. All 17 creators in organizations.json were scouted; 32 pages were fetched and hashed across 18 creator slugs, and only two creators produced claims at all — Anthropic with three and OpenAI with one. Fifteen blind reviewers cast fifteen verdicts across three rubrics, eight deterministic checks passed, and three edits landed across two dataset documents before GitHub merged PR #529 on a green web-ci and Pages deployed successfully. The principal finding is small and was sitting in plain sight: the anthropic-claude-4-8 family existed with no release record and therefore rendered empty, so this run added the missing Claude Opus 4.8 release and the docs page it is sourced from. No human reviewed any part of it. This entry was transcribed a day late — see the caveats.

PreflightRanAnchor a6a3dfc, selected by merge-base with refs/remotes/origin/main and computed by the gate rather than supplied — requestedBase was null. The approved-origin catalogue parsed cleanly at that anchor: 147 dataset sources and 12 profile catalogues out of 13 profile files, yielding 33 approved origins. The one profile listed but not drawn on is tools/updater/profiles/generic/long-tail.json, which configures no origins. The anchor is therefore full rather than silently narrowed.
ScoutRan32 pages fetched and hashed across 18 creator slugs. Every quote was extracted by anchor from fetched page text, so none is a recollection. No page budget was exhausted. ai.meta.com/blog/ returned HTTP 400 to every request tried, including with a browser User-Agent and a cookie jar, so Meta scouting fell back to huggingface.co/meta-llama, an approved origin; no Meta claim rested on the unreachable page and no Meta record changed. The 15 creators outside Anthropic and OpenAI produced coverage observations rather than claims.
ReviewRanThree independent reviewers per claim, launched in parallel across different model families, none seeing the scout's reasoning, another reviewer's verdict, or the running tally. The chair did not vote. One claim was reviewed twice and this is disclosed rather than hidden: round 1's provenance reviewer rejected the Opus 4.8 release because no attached quote stated the modalities, which was a mechanical defect — the bundle generator's block extractor matched an earlier occurrence of "Context window 1M tokens", so the "Input → output Text and images → text" line was never attached. The rubric's own remedy for a missing quote is to attach it, so the anchor was fixed, intendedUse was tightened to attribute rather than assert, and three fresh reviewers re-reviewed. Round 2's provenance reviewer rejected again on different, judgment-based grounds and the claim was not revised a third time: repeated revision to chase a verdict is vote-shopping. Fifteen verdicts were cast in total; the twelve from the final panels are published verbatim in the pull request body, and round 1's three rationales were not preserved.
GatesRangate-evidence and gate-source-approval ran per creator before anything was applied; gate-dataset, npm run validate and gate-scope ran afterwards. No gate was skipped, no threshold lowered, no --force, no --admin, no --base override, and no direct push to main. gate-scope reported changed: 2, empty: false, outOfClass: [], so the change sat inside the ADR 0003 qualifying class and was eligible to auto-merge.
PublishRanPR #529 carried the full evidence trail and was merged by GitHub via --auto once web-ci was green, not by the agent. Merge commit 0794286.
DeployRanPages deploy run 33250588183 on main succeeded, and https://abdeslam-menacere.github.io/ModelTree/models/claude-opus-4-8/ returned HTTP 200 serving the new record. No revert needed.

What was found

Scouts: 17
Pages fetched and hashed: 32
Claims proposed: 4

Claims per creator bundle, with the review threshold its profile set
Creator	Policy	Threshold	Claims
anthropic	pilot	2-of-3	3
openai	pilot	2-of-3	1

What those claims proposed to do
Kind	Count	Effect
Add	2	One release and one source proposed; both survived every stage and were applied.
Unchanged	2	Re-verified against a primary source; no value changed. One had its verification date advanced and one had it withheld.

Not covered

Fifteen of the seventeen creators scouted produced no claim at all. That is an honest zero per creator rather than a skipped stage, but it also means their records carry this run's attention without carrying its verification date.
ai.meta.com/blog/ returns HTTP 400 to this client and was not read; huggingface.co/meta-llama was used instead.
Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Cohere and OpenAI audio models remain uncovered by any claim this run could assemble.
Mistral Medium 3.5 was deliberately not claimed. Its release date is ambiguous between a product post dated 2026-05-22 and a version string reading "v 26.04", and an ambiguity is a finding rather than a coin to toss.

What was evaluated

Reviewers: 15
Verdicts cast: 15
Accepted by panel: 4
Rejected by panel: 0

Deterministic gates and required checks — 8 of 8 checks passed. Exit 0 is a pass; exit 2 means the gate could not run and is never treated as one.
Check	Scope	Exit	Result
`gate-evidence.mjs`	anthropic	0	PassPolicy pilot, threshold 2. Three claims, of which two were applicable.
`gate-evidence.mjs`	openai	0	PassPolicy pilot, threshold 2. One claim, none applicable — an unchanged claim applies nothing.
`gate-source-approval.mjs`	anthropic	0	PassFour cited sources were inherited and one was proposed: anthropic-opus-4-8-docs, on https://platform.claude.com — an origin already approved at the anchor commit and already carrying inherited sources, so no new origin was introduced. No source was refused.
`gate-source-approval.mjs`	openai	0	PassThe one cited source, openai-gpt-5-6-sol-docs, was inherited from an already approved origin. No source was refused.
`gate-dataset.mjs`	web/src/data	0	Pass148 sources, 26 publishers, 17 organizations, 37 families, 64 releases, 7 model-fit statements.
`npm run validate`	web/	0	Pass1613 tests executed across 71 files; astro check reported 0 errors.
`gate-scope.mjs`	branch vs merge-base	0	Passchanged: 2, empty: false, outOfClass: []. Anchored on the merge-base the gate computed rather than one supplied to it.
`web-ci`	PR #529	—	PassSUCCESS. GitHub performed the merge via --auto on this check going green; the agent did not merge.

Applied over a recorded dissent

These met their threshold and were applied. The objection stands on the record and was not overruled.

anthropic-claude-opus-4-8-release-addProvenanceaccessType "proprietary-hosted" is not forced by the quotes, because hosted availability does not exclude downloadable weights; and predecessorIds: [] under-states an announcement that calls Opus 4.7 "its predecessor". Outvoted 2-1. The claim was applied and both points are recorded here and in the pull request body as unresolved dissent rather than smoothed over.
anthropic-claude-mythos-5-limited-release-unchangedProvenanceThe quotes do not uniquely force status "preview" over "current", and do not re-state the recorded intendedUse. Outvoted 2-1, and materially right in the event: the claim reached its threshold and still applied nothing, because the verification date it would have advanced was withheld on separate grounds.

Posted 3 edits

3 edits across 2 documents, a net change of 2 records.

Dataset documents this run changed
Document	Before	After	What changed
`releases.json`	63	64	One release added: anthropic-claude-opus-4-8. openai-gpt-5-6-sol had its verifiedAt advanced to 2026-08-29.
`sources.json`	147	148	One source added: anthropic-opus-4-8-docs — the platform.claude.com model overview page the Opus 4.8 release is drawn from, accepted 3-of-3 on an origin already approved at the anchor commit. lastCheckedDate moved to 2026-08-29 on three of the four inherited sources re-read this run; anthropic-fable-5-mythos-5-docs was held at 2026-08-26 with the Mythos 5 claim it belongs to. Sources are listed here rather than under the posted records below, which carry links and so hold only the collections the site routes.

Each document links to the file as this run left it, not as it stands today.

Records added

Claude Opus 4.8passportreleasesanthropic-claude-opus-4-8New release — released 2026-05-28, status legacy, 1M context and 128K max output, text and image in, text out, API alias claude-opus-4-8. Fills the anthropic-claude-4-8 family, which until now had no release and rendered empty. Carries the recorded provenance dissent on accessType and on its empty lineage arrays.

Not posted 4 items

Verification date deliberately held back

releases/anthropic-claude-mythos-5.verifiedAtHeld at 2026-08-15; nothing was applied for this claim despite it reaching its threshold. validate.ts forbids guidance dated before the evidence beneath it, and fit-claude-mythos-5-limited-availability, verified 2026-08-15, rests on this release's status and intendedUse. Advancing the release would have silently invalidated that fit statement — validation failed exactly this way when it was first attempted. Re-dating guidance this run gathered no evidence for would have been the larger claim, so the date was withheld instead. This also matches how gate-evidence treats unchanged claims, which apply nothing.Blocked by fit-claude-mythos-5-limited-availabilityvalidate.ts

Sources conflict, so no value changed

mistral-medium-3-5Not claimed at all. Its release date is ambiguous between a product post dated 2026-05-22 and a version string reading "v 26.04". Neither reading is forced by the other, so the run recorded the disagreement rather than picking a side. The dataset still holds nothing on this model, which is the cost of leaving the ambiguity explicit.

Out of the run’s reach

meta-announcement-indexhttps://ai.meta.com/blog/ returns HTTP 400 to every request tried, including with a browser User-Agent and a cookie jar. Meta scouting fell back to huggingface.co/meta-llama, an approved origin. No Meta claim rested on the unreachable page and no Meta record changed, so absence of a Meta finding here is not evidence that there was nothing to find.Blocked by https://ai.meta.com/blog/
coverage-google-microsoft-amazon-cohere-openai-audioGoogle, Microsoft, Amazon, Cohere and OpenAI audio models were scouted and produced coverage observations rather than claims. The observations are carried as follow-ups below rather than being written into the dataset as inferences.

What this run does not prove

No human reviewed the pull request. The evidence trail, the deterministic gates and the required web-ci check are the whole of the oversight.
A green run proves the dataset is internally coherent and that every applied claim carried a quote from an approved origin. It does not prove the sources are right.
Two creators out of seventeen produced claims. The other fifteen were read and yielded nothing claimable, so this run moved the dataset barely at all and its silence about them is not a clean bill of health.
Round 1's three review rationales for the Opus 4.8 release claim were not preserved verbatim in the run artifacts, so the audit trail for that claim starts at round 2. That gap is follow-up 6 and it is the reason the reviewer count here exceeds the twelve rationales published.
editsApplied counts the three claims that reached the dataset — two adds and one advanced verification date — following the convention of the earlier entries here. The merge commit also moves lastCheckedDate on three sources that rode along with those claims, which the diff shows and this count does not.
This entry was written on 2026-08-30, a day after the run, because the run could not record itself: refresh-runs.json sits outside the ADR 0003 qualifying class that gate-scope enforces, so including it in PR #529 would have failed that gate and forfeited auto-merge. The transcription needs its own human-merged pull request, and for this run that pull request was initially never opened. The absence was noticed only when a reader asked why the page showed no 2026-08-29 line.

Follow-ups — proposed, not fixed

Re-verify fit-claude-mythos-5-limited-availability so the Mythos 5 release verifiedAt can move. It is blocking a routine re-verification today.
Populate predecessorIds and successorIds across the Claude Opus line. Opus 4.6, 4.7 and now 4.8 all carry empty lineage arrays while the announcements state the relationships explicitly. Fix the line as a whole rather than one record.
Resolve the Mistral Medium 3.5 release-date ambiguity — decide which of the two published dates the dataset should record, or record the ambiguity explicitly.
Close coverage gaps for Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Cohere, and OpenAI audio models.
Find a reachable Meta announcement index to replace ai.meta.com/blog.
Persist superseded review rounds verbatim in the run artifacts, so a corrected claim's first-round rationales survive for audit.
Nothing notices when a published run never gets transcribed into this log. The publishing skill set opens the dataset pull request and files the summary issue, and the log entry is a separate human-merged change that no check requires; this run's line was missing for a day and only a reader's question surfaced it.

2026-08-28-cff539

Long-tail refresh 2026-08-28 — Cohere

Scope requested: One long-tail creator, Cohere, under the unanimous 3-of-3 policy, restricted to the two origins PR #445 approved for it: docs.cohere.com under /docs/ and cohere.com under /blog.Ran, changed nothingAug 28, 20260 edits posted · 6 items withheld

A second attempt at Cohere, run after PR #459 amended the provenance rubric to treat vocabulary mapping as a recording step rather than an inference. The amendment worked and is not why this run publishes nothing: the provenance reviewer stated in terms that "mapping Live to current would be a permitted recording step at the same entity level", conceding the exact objection that sank run 2026-08-27-4f1c9e. Three different blockers stopped it instead. No release claim could be assembled at all — familySchema.firstReleaseDate is a day-precision isoDate and no approved origin states one for any Cohere family, while the one model with a day-precision date, Command A+, is released under two deployment routes and so requires a license object whose osiApproved field no approved origin states. The Command A+ family claim that was proposed was rejected 0-of-3, all three rubrics independently holding that Cohere's own words "the last model in the Command A family" make it a model inside a family rather than a family. The organization and publisher claims were rejected 2-of-3 by provenance on the same ground as last time — no quote states the schema classification "company" — which PR #459 did not address. Two source claims were accepted unanimously and still were not applied: with no record citing them they would be unreferenced sources, which validate.test.ts forbids. The dataset is unchanged; this entry is the only edit.

PreflightRandrydock is not on PATH, so the manual posture applied: implement, commit, report, and stop at the review gate rather than landing anything. Clean tree rebased onto origin/main at 1512da2, then rebased again mid-run onto 73f92f3 after three pull requests landed — #462 correcting the featured criterion, #463 adding the A-Z provider directory and #464 the lineage explorer. The second rebase was clean and releases.json did not conflict. Every gate below was recomputed against the final anchor 73f92f3 rather than carried forward, because a gate result binds to the commit it was computed against.
ScoutRan26 pages fetched over real HTTP from the two approved origins only, all HTTP 200, with the exact bytes and their sha256 recorded in a fetch manifest before any quote was written. Every quote was then extracted programmatically from those hashed bytes by a builder that throws if the quote is absent, ambiguous or under the 24-character minimum; it caught two real faults during construction — a search-offset bug, and an identifier that appears in both a model table and a serving-platform table and so could not be quoted unambiguously. docs.cohere.com/changelog/, /llms.txt and /v2/docs/, and cohere.com/research/, were deliberately not fetched: they fall outside the allowed_paths in the approved origins catalogue.
ReviewRanOne blind panel, three rubrics, run as three parallel sub-agents on three different model families so no rubric shared a training lineage with another. Each reviewer saw only the stripped bundle — statement, values, evidence, dataset slice and its own rubric — and never the scout's reasoning, another reviewer's verdict, or the running tally. 18 verdicts cast, every one carrying a rationale, all published verbatim in the pull request body. No reviewer was re-run and no threshold was adjusted.
GatesRangate-evidence and gate-source-approval ran before anything would have been applied, anchored on the committed dataset at merge-base 73f92f3 computed by the gate rather than supplied. gate-dataset, npm run validate and gate-scope ran afterwards. gate-evidence was first invoked wrongly and exited 2; exit 2 is "the gate could not run", so it was treated as a failure and re-run correctly rather than read as a pass.
PublishRanAn ordinary pull request carrying this log entry and no dataset change. Auto-merge was neither requested nor eligible: refresh-runs.json is outside the gate-scope qualifying class, so ADR 0003 does not cover this change and a human merges it.
DeployNot applicableNo dataset change to deploy. The rendered tree is byte-identical to the one already on main; only the /refresh/ page gains this entry.

What was found

Scouts: 1
Pages fetched and hashed: 26
Claims proposed: 6

Claims per creator bundle, with the review threshold its profile set
Creator	Policy	Threshold	Claims
cohere	long-tail	3-of-3	6

What those claims proposed to do
Kind	Count	Effect
Add	6	Would have added three sources, one publisher, one organization and one family. No release claim was proposed, because no release could be assembled from the approved origins without guessing a required field. None was applied.

Not covered

No release claim for any Cohere model. familySchema.firstReleaseDate is a day-precision isoDate with no datePrecision companion, and no approved origin states a first release date at that precision for the Command, Aya, Embed, Rerank, Parse or Transcribe families. The best available are month-precision prose — "delivered in August 2024", "delivered in December 2024" — and the snapshot dates encoded in identifiers such as command-a-03-2025.
command-a-plus-05-2026 has a quotable day-precision release date and was still not claimed: the model card states both "Cohere Deployment" and an Apache 2.0 open-source deployment, which is accessType "both", and releaseSchema then requires a license object whose osiApproved is a non-optional boolean no approved origin states. This is open issue #461.
rerank-v3.5 carries the only other day-precision date on an approved origin, but the Rerank table has no Status column, no approved origin states its accessType, and its single "Modalities" column does not separate input from output. Three required fields unstated.
huggingface.co/CohereLabs states the Apache 2.0 licence and would close the osiApproved gap. It is explicitly not an approved origin for this creator, and a run may never approve one, so it was not fetched and not cited.
Blog publication timestamps on cohere.com/blog were deliberately not used as release dates. The amended provenance rubric states that a page’s publication timestamp is not a statement of a release date, and this run held to that even though it left the run with no usable dates.
Bedrock, SageMaker, Azure AI Foundry and Oracle OCI identifiers appear throughout the Cohere docs and were never used to fill a release’s accessType. They state what a serving platform offers, not how the creator releases the model.

What was evaluated

Reviewers: 3
Verdicts cast: 18
Accepted by panel: 2
Rejected by panel: 4

Deterministic gates and required checks — 3 of 5 checks passed. Exit 0 is a pass; exit 2 means the gate could not run and is never treated as one.
Check	Scope	Exit	Result
`gate-evidence`	1 bundle, 6 claims	1	FailFailed on exactly the four claims the panel put below the unanimous 3-of-3 long-tail threshold: co6-source-command-a-plus-card-add, co6-publisher-cohere-add, co6-organization-cohere-add and co6-family-command-a-plus-add. It reported no evidence-format failure of any kind — every quote was present, verbatim against the hashed bytes, and over the 24-character minimum. The failure is the review threshold, not the evidence. Nothing was applied, so nothing shipped past it.
`gate-source-approval`	1 bundle, 12 citations	0	PassAnchored on the committed dataset at merge-base 73f92f3 with refs/remotes/origin/main, computed by the gate rather than supplied, so the run could not approve its own source. 24 already-trusted origins; all 12 citations landed on the two origins PR #445 approved for Cohere. No new host was admitted and none was proposed.
`gate-dataset`	working tree	0	PassThe dataset is unchanged by this run and remains internally coherent: 109 sources, 15 publishers, 7 organizations, 26 families, 49 releases. No orphaned source, no dangling reference, no release predating its family.
`npm run validate`	web/	0	PassFull test suite and Astro/TypeScript diagnostics green — 985 tests across 37 files, 0 errors — including the refresh-log schema test this new entry must satisfy, and validate.test.ts, whose unreferenced-source rule is the reason the two accepted sources were not applied.
`gate-scope`	branch vs merge-base 73f92f3	1	FailReports web/src/data/refresh-runs.json as outOfClass, which is correct and expected rather than a problem to work around: the ADR 0003 qualifying class is the eleven dataset documents raw.ts composes, and the refresh log is deliberately not one of them, so any run that logs itself leaves the class by construction. The gate was not modified, the file was not added to ALLOWED_PATHS, and the log entry was not dropped to stay in class. The consequence is simply that this change is outside ADR 0003 and merges the ordinary way, with a human.

Posted 0 edits

Nothing reached the dataset. No branch, no commit, no pull request.

Not posted 6 items

Rejected by the review panel

cohere-command-a-plus-familyRejected 0-of-3 — the only claim in either Cohere run to be refused by all three rubrics independently, and the clearest finding here. Cohere’s own documentation, quoted in the claim, calls Command A+ "the last model in the Command A family". Provenance held that the Live status and release date are quoted about the dated command-a-plus-05-2026 release and so add unsupported scope when applied to a family. Consistency held that filing a model as a family breaks lineage coherence and contradicts the claim’s own description. Editorial held that the profile’s naming rule makes the dated identifier the release and the dateless form its alias, so elevating one model to a family nested inside the family Cohere actually names mis-levels a release. This is a modelling defect the run got wrong, not a sourcing gap, and it is recorded rather than patched: correcting it would need a second panel on a claim whose release dependency had already failed.Blocked by co6-family-command-a-plus-add
cohere-organization-and-publisherBoth accepted by consistency and editorial and both rejected by provenance, 2-of-3, short of the unanimous long-tail bar. The objection is precisely the one that sank the same claim in run 2026-08-27-4f1c9e: no quote states the schema classification "company", and "Name of the model provider: Cohere Inc." supplies a provider name rather than a classification. PR #459 legitimised selecting a vocabulary member that a quoted term denotes; it did not create a quoted term here, and the rubric’s "the source states nothing on the point" rejection still applies. That is the amendment working as written, not failing.Blocked by co6-organization-cohere-addco6-publisher-cohere-add
cohere-command-a-plus-model-card-sourceAccepted by consistency and editorial, rejected by provenance 2-of-3. The page heading "Cohere’s Command A+ Model" is verbatim in the hashed bytes, but provenance held it identifies a page about the model without stating that the page is a structured model card, so the source type "model-card" rested on an unsupported classification. Editorial reached the opposite conclusion on the same page, noting it carries provider, release date, modalities and model size under explicit headings. The disagreement is recorded rather than resolved by the chair, who does not vote.Blocked by co6-source-command-a-plus-card-add

Accepted by the panel, then dropped

cohere-accepted-sourcesThe two documentation sources — the Models Overview page and The Cohere Platform page — were the only claims to clear the unanimous bar, accepted 3-of-3 by all three rubrics. They were still not applied. Every claim that would have cited them was rejected, so applying them would add sources that no record references, and check-bundle-pairing refuses exactly this: "an unreferenced source is dead provenance", a rule validate.test.ts enforces in the suite. Applying two records that reference nothing to report a non-empty diff would be the pipeline working against its own purpose.Blocked by cohere-organization-and-publishercohere-command-a-plus-family

Verification date deliberately held back

cohere-command-a-plus-05-2026The strongest release candidate Cohere publishes, and it was never put to the panel because it cannot be assembled honestly. Its model card states both "Cohere Deployment" and "Open Source Deployment: Command A+ is available under an Apache 2.0 License on Hugging Face", which is accessType "both"; releaseSchema.superRefine then requires a license object, and licenseSchema requires osiApproved as a non-optional boolean. No approved Cohere origin states OSI approval, and schema.ts states in terms that downloadable weights and OSI approval are separate claims where neither implies the other, so it cannot be derived from the Apache 2.0 quote. huggingface.co/CohereLabs would settle it and is explicitly not an approved origin; a run may never approve one. Open issue #461. Withheld rather than filled — a required field is not a licence to guess.Blocked by web/src/data/schema.tstools/updater/profiles/origins/cohere.json
cohere-remaining-model-table-rowsCommand A, Command R, Command R7B, Command R+, Command A Translate, Command A Reasoning, Command A Vision, Aya Expanse, Aya Vision, Tiny Aya, Embed, Parse, Cohere Transcribe, rerank-v3.5 and rerank-v4.0 — the full breadth this run was asked to claim. Each needs a family, and familySchema.firstReleaseDate is a day-precision isoDate with no datePrecision companion even though partialDate exists in the same file and is used for evaluationDate, release-event dates and usage windows. Only two day-precision Cohere release dates exist anywhere on an approved origin, and both belong to explicitly non-first family members, so every family here would need a day the source never gave. rerank-v3.5 additionally lacks a stated status and accessType and its "Modalities" column does not separate input from output. Breadth was the goal and the schema, not the sources, is what refused it.Blocked by web/src/data/schema.ts

What this run does not prove

Nothing was applied to the dataset. The Others branch is unchanged and still renders no creators; this entry is the only edit in the pull request.
PR #459 did what it set out to do, and this run is evidence for that rather than against it. The provenance reviewer wrote that "mapping Live to current would be a permitted recording step at the same entity level" — the precise objection that ended the previous Cohere attempt, now conceded. It rejected on entity-level scope instead, which is a different and untouched part of the rubric. Reading this run as PR #459 having failed would be the wrong lesson.
The two remaining blockers are schema shape, not evidence and not review. A day-precision firstReleaseDate and a required osiApproved are both fields the schema demands and the approved sources do not state, and no amount of better scouting reaches them. Until one of the follow-ups below lands, Cohere is unpublishable from its currently approved origins however good the evidence is.
The 0-of-3 family rejection is a fault in this run’s own modelling, and it is reported as one. Command A+ is a model in the Command A family and filing it as a family was wrong; all three rubrics caught it independently, which is the panel doing exactly what it exists to do.
Since PR #463, an organization with at least one family but no releases now renders in the /providers A-Z directory rather than nowhere, so the reason the previous run gave for dropping accepted organizations no longer holds in full. It did not change this run’s outcome — the organization and family claims were rejected on their own merits — but the constraint recorded in run 2026-08-27-4f1c9e is now out of date.
A withheld creator is a real outcome of the policy, not a failure of the sources. Everything above rests on facts Cohere publishes plainly on origins this repository already approved.

Follow-ups — proposed, not fixed

Make familySchema.firstReleaseDate accept partialDate, the same YYYY(-MM(-DD)) shape already used in this file for evaluationDate, release-event dates and usage windows, and pair it with a datePrecision companion as releases already have. It is the single change that would let this run publish: Cohere states month precision for several families and day precision for almost none, and a day-precision-only field forces a fabricated -01 day or nothing at all.
Resolve issue #461. licenseSchema requires osiApproved whenever a license object is present, and releaseSchema requires a license object whenever accessType is "both" or "open-weight", so a well-sourced Apache 2.0 release is unrecordable unless an origin stating OSI approval is approved. Either make osiApproved optional, or approve huggingface.co/CohereLabs for this creator. Today the only honest option is to withhold the release entirely.
Update the constraint recorded in run 2026-08-27-4f1c9e and in issue #441: after PR #463, model-tree.ts is no longer the only renderer, and provider-directory.ts places an organization with a family and no releases into the A-Z directory. An organization-and-family record is no longer invisible, so "renders nowhere" is no longer a sufficient reason on its own to drop accepted claims.
Decide whether a source’s type field — "model-card" against "official-docs" — is a claim needing its own verbatim support or a cataloguing decision. Provenance and editorial split on exactly this for the Command A+ page, and the same split will recur on every model card the project ever records.
Consider whether the organization type "company" needs a quote at all. It is the second Cohere run stopped partly by the absence of a source sentence classifying a company as a company, and no approved origin is ever likely to contain one. If the field is a cataloguing decision rather than a claim about the world, the rubric should say so; if it is a claim, organizations may simply be unrecordable for most creators.
docs.cohere.com/changelog/ and docs.cohere.com/v2/docs/ sit outside the allowed_paths in the approved origins catalogue and were not fetched. The changelog is the one place a creator normally states dated releases in prose, so approving that path is likely worth more to this creator than any further scouting of /docs/.

2026-08-27-ab1644

Data refresh 2026-08-27

Scope requested: Every creator in organizations.json, plus the long-tail profile sweepPublishedAug 27, 202635 edits posted · 56 items withheld

An agent-run, source-backed refresh under ADR 0003. Five scouts fetched and hashed 130 primary pages and proposed 104 claims; twelve blind reviewers cast 312 verdicts across three rubrics; six deterministic gates passed; 35 edits landed across four dataset documents and GitHub Pages deployed successfully. 51 claims were dropped, most of them to one scout-side fault that proposed new sources without the paired citation edit. No human reviewed any part of it.

PreflightRanClean tree, gh authenticated, no unmerged pull request from a previous refresh.
ScoutRanFive bundles, one per creator profile plus a long-tail sweep. 130 page snapshots hashed. openai.com/news/ returned 403 and the RSS feed was used instead; ai.meta.com/blog/ returned 400; docs.anthropic.com now redirects to platform.claude.com.
ReviewRanTwelve reviewers, three rubrics over four bundles. The long-tail bundle had no claims to review. No threshold was lowered and no reviewer was re-run.
GatesRangate-evidence, gate-source-approval and check-bundle-pairing before applying anything; gate-dataset, npm run validate, and gate-scope after. The coupled drop set was iterated to a fixpoint over 3 passes.
PublishRanPR #417 opened with the full evidence trail across the body and two comments, and merged by GitHub on a green web-ci.
DeployRanPages deployed main @ 547691a successfully; the live site serves the new entities. No revert needed.

What was found

Scouts: 5
Pages fetched and hashed: 130
Claims proposed: 104

Claims per creator bundle, with the review threshold its profile set
Creator	Policy	Threshold	Claims
openai	pilot	2-of-3	26
anthropic	pilot	2-of-3	24
google-deepmind	pilot	2-of-3	22
meta	pilot	2-of-3	32
long-tail sweep	long-tail	3-of-3	0

What those claims proposed to do
Kind	Count	Effect
Add	74	Proposed new records; 30 survived every stage.
Change	8	Field corrections; 5 survived every stage.
Unchanged	20	Re-verified against a primary source; no value changed. 11 records had verifiedAt moved forward.
Conflict	2	Primary sources disagree; both sides recorded, no value changed. Neither reached the dataset.

Not covered

Any creator outside the four pilot profiles and the long-tail catalogue.
openai.com/news/ returns 403 to this client; the RSS feed was read instead, so anything on the news pages but absent from the feed was not seen.
ai.meta.com/blog/ returns 400 to this client and was not read.
The OpenAI page budget was exhausted at 40 pages, so its catalogue was not read to the end.
The long-tail sweep returned zero claims. That is an honest zero, not a skipped stage — it was gated like every other bundle.

What was evaluated

Reviewers: 12
Verdicts cast: 312
Accepted by panel: 83
Rejected by panel: 21

Deterministic gates and required checks — 8 of 8 checks passed. Exit 0 is a pass; exit 2 means the gate could not run and is never treated as one.
Check	Scope	Exit	Result
`gate-evidence`	5 bundles	0	PassThree rubrics present per claim, no duplicate votes, no empty rationale, every claim at its profile threshold.
`gate-source-approval`	5 bundles	0	Pass76 citations against anchor 052fb0d, selected by merge-base with refs/remotes/origin/main. requestedBase was null, so the run could not approve its own committed source. 16 approved origins, anchored on 61 sources already in the dataset and 5 reviewed profile catalogues. No new host admitted, and no source added to make a citation resolve.
`check-bundle-pairing`not required	5 bundles	0	PassLanded on main as #413 mid-run and was run from main copy rather than added to this branch, since adding it would be an out-of-class change gate-scope would rightly refuse. It named the same unpaired sources this run had already found independently.
`gate-dataset`	working tree	0	PassThe dataset is internally coherent after the edits were applied: 80 sources, 19 families, 35 releases.
`gate-scope`	branch vs anchor	0	Passchanged: 4, outOfClass: [], empty: false. Exit 0 alone is ambiguous; the publish precondition is exit 0 and changed > 0.
`npm run validate`	baseline and after	0	Pass579 tests across 24 files, astro check 0 errors.
`web-ci`	PR #417	—	PassGreen. This is the check branch protection requires before a merge.
`skills-ci`not required	PR #417	—	PassGreen, unlike the 2026-08-25 run where it was red and non-blocking.

Applied over a recorded dissent

These met their threshold and were applied. The objection stands on the record and was not overruled.

openai-gpt-5-1-family-addProvenanceThe RSS quote states GPT-5.1 was introduced for developers on 2025-11-13 and the docs quote states coding/agentic use and token limits, but no quote states the proposed family status "legacy" or the multimodal category. The proposed record therefore states more than the evidence quotes do.
openai-gpt-5-2-family-addProvenanceThe RSS quote states "Introducing GPT-5.2" with a 2025-12-11 pubDate, and the docs quote calls it a previous frontier model. No quote states the proposed family status "legacy" as a status value, so the record goes beyond the quoted evidence.
openai-gpt-5-3-codex-family-addProvenanceThe RSS quote gives the GPT-5.3-Codex introduction and date, and the docs quote says it is optimized for agentic coding. No quote states the proposed family status "current", so the proposed record adds an unstated field.
openai-gpt-image-family-addProvenanceThe dated announcement quote names "ChatGPT Images 2.0", not GPT-Image or GPT-Image-2. The GPT Image 2 docs quote states image generation/editing but not the 2026-04-21 introduction date for that entity.
anthropic-claude-4-6-familyProvenanceThe quotes name Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 and describe their capabilities. They do not state a "Claude 4.6" generation family, the 2026-02-05 firstReleaseDate for that family, or its status.
anthropic-claude-4-7-familyProvenanceThe quote states Opus 4.7 improves on Opus 4.6 in advanced software engineering. It does not state a broader "Claude 4.7" family, the proposed firstReleaseDate, or the status field.
anthropic-claude-4-8-familyProvenanceThe quote states Anthropic is upgrading Claude Opus to Claude Opus 4.8. It does not state a broader "Claude 4.8" generation family, its firstReleaseDate, or its status.
meta-llama-4-maverick-original-sourceProvenanceThe quote says the repository contains original checkpoints for Meta's llama-stack codebase. It does not name meta-llama/Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct-Original, so the source title is not stated by the quote alone.
meta-llama-3-2-1b-releaseProvenanceThe quotes state Llama 3.2 1B details, 1.23B parameters, 128k context, release date, and the Llama 3.2 license title. No quote states the proposed "legacy" status or the downloadable/OSI license fields.
meta-llama-3-2-3b-releaseProvenanceThe quotes state Llama 3.2 3B details, 3.21B parameters, release date, and the Llama 3.2 license title. No quote states the proposed 128,000-token context window for this 3B claim or the "legacy" status.
meta-llama-3-2-11b-vision-releaseProvenanceThe quotes state Llama 3.2 Vision 11B details, 10.6B parameters, 128k context, release date, and the license title. No quote states the proposed "legacy" status or the downloadable/OSI license fields.
meta-llama-3-2-90b-vision-releaseProvenanceThe quotes state Llama 3.2 Vision 90B details, 88.8B parameters, 128k context, release date, and the license title. No quote states the proposed "legacy" status or the downloadable/OSI license fields.
meta-llama-4-maverick-api-aliasesProvenanceThe first quote names meta-llama/Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E, but the second only says "original checkpoints" without naming the exact Instruct-Original repository. Read alone, the quotes do not state both proposed aliases.
meta-llama-4-maverick-source-idsProvenanceThe first quote identifies the base Maverick repository, but the second only says "original checkpoints" without naming the exact original-checkpoint model card. The evidence therefore does not state both newly proposed source IDs.

Posted 35 edits

35 edits across 4 documents, a net change of 30 records.

Dataset documents this run changed
Document	Before	After	What changed
`sources.json`	61	80	19 sources added.
`families.json`	12	19	Seven families added.
`releases.json`	31	35	Four releases added.
`organizations.json`	4	4	Verification dates moved forward; no record added or removed.

Each document links to the file as this run left it, not as it stands today.

Records added

GPT-5.1in the treefamiliesopenai-gpt-5-1New OpenAI family; carries a recorded provenance dissent.
GPT-5.2in the treefamiliesopenai-gpt-5-2New OpenAI family; carries a recorded provenance dissent.
GPT-5.3-Codexin the treefamiliesopenai-gpt-5-3-codexNew OpenAI family; carries a recorded provenance dissent.
GPT-Imagein the treefamiliesopenai-gpt-imageNew OpenAI family; carries a recorded provenance dissent.
Claude 4.6in the treefamiliesanthropic-claude-4-6New Anthropic generation family; carries a recorded provenance dissent.
Claude 4.7in the treefamiliesanthropic-claude-4-7New Anthropic generation family; carries a recorded provenance dissent.
Claude 4.8in the treefamiliesanthropic-claude-4-8New Anthropic generation family; carries a recorded provenance dissent.
Llama 3.2 1Bpassportreleasesmeta-llama-3-2-1bNew release; carries a recorded provenance dissent on its status and license fields.
Llama 3.2 3Bpassportreleasesmeta-llama-3-2-3bNew release; carries a recorded provenance dissent on its context window and status.
Llama 3.2 11B Visionpassportreleasesmeta-llama-3-2-11b-visionNew release; carries a recorded provenance dissent on its status and license fields.
Llama 3.2 90B Visionpassportreleasesmeta-llama-3-2-90b-visionNew release; carries a recorded provenance dissent on its status and license fields.

Not posted 56 items

Rejected by the review panel

openai-gpt-5-1-release-addOpenAI's API docs list GPT-5.1 as an API model for coding and agentic tasks. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
openai-gpt-5-2-release-addOpenAI's API docs list GPT-5.2 as an API model for professional work. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
openai-gpt-5-3-codex-release-addOpenAI's API docs list GPT-5.3-Codex as an agentic coding model. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
openai-gpt-5-4-mini-release-addOpenAI's API docs list GPT-5.4 Mini as a faster GPT-5.4 variant for high-volume workloads. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
openai-gpt-5-4-nano-release-addOpenAI's API docs list GPT-5.4 nano as a GPT-5.4-class model for simple high-volume tasks. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
openai-gpt-image-2-release-addOpenAI's API docs list GPT-Image-2 as an image-generation model. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
anthropic-claude-sonnet-4-5-releaseClaude Sonnet 4.5 should be added as an Anthropic Claude 4.5 release. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
anthropic-claude-opus-4-5-releaseClaude Opus 4.5 should be added as an Anthropic Claude 4.5 release. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
anthropic-claude-opus-4-6-releaseClaude Opus 4.6 should be added as an Anthropic Claude 4.6 release. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
anthropic-claude-sonnet-4-6-releaseClaude Sonnet 4.6 should be added as an Anthropic Claude 4.6 release. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
anthropic-claude-opus-4-7-releaseClaude Opus 4.7 should be added as an Anthropic Claude 4.7 release. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
anthropic-claude-opus-4-8-releaseClaude Opus 4.8 should be added as an Anthropic Claude 4.8 release. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
google-gemini-2-5-flash-lite-add-releaseGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite should be added as a current Gemini 2.5 release dated July 22, 2025. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
google-gemini-3-flash-preview-add-releaseGemini 3 Flash Preview should be added as a preview Gemini 3 release dated December 17, 2025. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
google-gemini-3-1-flash-image-add-releaseGemini 3.1 Flash Image should be added as a current Gemini 3 release dated May 28, 2026. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
google-gemini-3-pro-image-add-releaseGemini 3 Pro Image should be added as a current Gemini 3 release dated May 28, 2026. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
google-gemini-2-5-flash-image-add-releaseGemini 2.5 Flash Image should be added as a current Gemini 2.5 release dated October 2, 2025. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
google-gemini-3-5-transcribe-add-releaseGemini 3.5 Transcribe should be added as a current Gemini 3 release dated to August 2026. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
google-gemini-3-5-live-translate-preview-add-releaseGemini 3.5 Live Translate Preview should be added as a preview Gemini 3 release dated to June 2026. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
google-gemini-3-1-flash-live-preview-add-releaseGemini 3.1 Flash Live Preview should be added as a preview Gemini 3 release dated March 11, 2026. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)
google-gemini-3-1-flash-tts-preview-add-releaseGemini 3.1 Flash TTS Preview should be added as a preview Gemini 3 release dated April 13, 2026. Did not reach 2 of 3 accepts under the pilot policy.Blocked by pilot policy (2-of-3)

Accepted by the panel, then dropped

source-openai-api-docsModels | OpenAI API should be added as an OpenAI official-docs source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
source-openai-gpt-5-4-mini-docsGPT-5.4 Mini model documentation should be added as an OpenAI official-docs source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
source-openai-gpt-5-4-nano-docsGPT-5.4 nano model documentation should be added as an OpenAI official-docs source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
source-openai-daybreak-red-docsDaybreak Red model documentation should be added as an OpenAI official-docs source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
source-openai-daybreak-blue-docsDaybreak Blue model documentation should be added as an OpenAI official-docs source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
source-openai-gpt-realtime-mini-docsGPT-Realtime Mini model documentation should be added as an OpenAI official-docs source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
anthropic-fable-5-docs-sourceClaude Fable 5 should be added as an official Anthropic source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
anthropic-opus-5-docs-sourceClaude Opus 5 should be added as an official Anthropic source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
anthropic-haiku-4-5-docs-sourceClaude Haiku 4.5 should be added as an official Anthropic source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
anthropic-fable-5-biology-safeguards-sourceImproving Fable 5's biology safeguards should be added as an official Anthropic source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
anthropic-opus-4-5-announcement-sourceIntroducing Claude Opus 4.5 should be added as an official Anthropic source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
source-google-gemini-2-5-flash-lite-docsAdd Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite as an official Google AI source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
source-google-gemini-3-flash-preview-docsAdd Gemini 3 Flash preview as an official Google AI source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
source-google-gemini-3-1-flash-image-docsAdd Gemini 3.1 Flash image as an official Google AI source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
source-google-gemini-3-pro-image-docsAdd Gemini 3 Pro image as an official Google AI source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
source-google-gemini-2-5-flash-image-docsAdd Gemini 2.5 Flash image (Nano Banana) as an official Google AI source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
source-google-gemini-3-5-transcribe-docsAdd Gemini 3.5 Transcribe as an official Google AI source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
source-google-gemini-3-5-live-translate-docsAdd Gemini 3.5 Live translate as an official Google AI source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
source-google-gemini-3-1-flash-live-docsAdd Gemini 3.1 Flash live preview as an official Google AI source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
source-google-gemini-3-1-flash-tts-docsAdd Gemini 3.1 Flash TTS preview as an official Google AI source. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
meta-llama-guard-4-sourceThe source catalog should include meta-llama/Llama-Guard-4-12B. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
meta-llama-prompt-guard-2-86m-sourceThe source catalog should include meta-llama/Llama-Prompt-Guard-2-86M. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts
meta-llama-prompt-guard-2-22m-sourceThe source catalog should include meta-llama/Llama-Prompt-Guard-2-22M. Accepted by the panel, then dropped: validate.test.ts refuses a source no record cites, and the scout proposed this source without the paired change claim that would wire it into a record sourceIds.Blocked by validate.test.ts

Verification date deliberately held back

releases/openai-gpt-5.verifiedAtModel fit statement fit-gpt-5-superseded rests on this release and was verified 2026-08-18. Moving verifiedAt to 2026-08-27 would make that guidance stale, and this run gathered no evidence about fit statements. Capping the date to fit the invariant would assert a verification that never happened.Blocked by fit-gpt-5-supersededvalidate.ts
releases/anthropic-claude-mythos-5.verifiedAtModel fit statement fit-claude-mythos-5-limited-availability rests on this release and was verified 2026-08-15. Moving verifiedAt to 2026-08-27 would make that guidance stale, and this run gathered no evidence about fit statements. Capping the date to fit the invariant would assert a verification that never happened.Blocked by fit-claude-mythos-5-limited-availabilityvalidate.ts
releases/meta-llama-4-scout.verifiedAtModel fit statement fit-llama-4-scout-self-hosting rests on this release and was verified 2026-08-15. Moving verifiedAt to 2026-08-27 would make that guidance stale, and this run gathered no evidence about fit statements. Capping the date to fit the invariant would assert a verification that never happened.Blocked by fit-llama-4-scout-self-hostingvalidate.ts

Sources conflict, so no value changed

google-gemini-embedding-2-api-code-conflictGoogle sources disagree on whether the Gemini Embedding 2 API identifier is gemini-embedding-2 or gemini-embedding-2-preview. All three rubrics accepted it as a conflict; a conflict is recorded as a finding and never applied to the dataset.Blocked by google-gemini-models-referencegoogle-gemini-deprecations

Source refused by the approval gate

openai-gpt-5-6-cyber-daybreak-red-aliasOpenAI's Daybreak Red model documentation lists daybreak-red-latest as an alias for gpt-5.6-cyber. Rests on a source withdrawn earlier in this same run, so gate-source-approval refused it. Writing the missing citation by hand would have been an unreviewed dataset edit, so the coupled set was withheld together.Blocked by gate-source-approval.mjs
openai-gpt-5-6-sol-daybreak-blue-aliasOpenAI's Daybreak Blue model documentation lists daybreak-blue-latest as an alias for gpt-5.6-sol. Rests on a source withdrawn earlier in this same run, so gate-source-approval refused it. Writing the missing citation by hand would have been an unreviewed dataset edit, so the coupled set was withheld together.Blocked by gate-source-approval.mjs
openai-gpt-realtime-mini-status-conflictOpenAI's model catalog labels GPT-Realtime Mini deprecated, while its individual model page labels it default. Rests on a source withdrawn earlier in this same run, so gate-source-approval refused it. Writing the missing citation by hand would have been an unreviewed dataset edit, so the coupled set was withheld together.Blocked by gate-source-approval.mjs
anthropic-claude-fable-5-intended-use-biology-caveatClaude Fable 5's intended-use text should include Anthropic's caveat that dual-use biology requests still fall back to Opus 5. Rests on a source withdrawn earlier in this same run, so gate-source-approval refused it. Writing the missing citation by hand would have been an unreviewed dataset edit, so the coupled set was withheld together.Blocked by gate-source-approval.mjs
anthropic-claude-haiku-4-5-status-activeClaude Haiku 4.5 remains an active latest Claude model. Rests on a source withdrawn earlier in this same run, so gate-source-approval refused it. Writing the missing citation by hand would have been an unreviewed dataset edit, so the coupled set was withheld together.Blocked by gate-source-approval.mjs
anthropic-claude-haiku-4-5-context-windowClaude Haiku 4.5 still has a 200,000-token context window. Rests on a source withdrawn earlier in this same run, so gate-source-approval refused it. Writing the missing citation by hand would have been an unreviewed dataset edit, so the coupled set was withheld together.Blocked by gate-source-approval.mjs
anthropic-claude-haiku-4-5-api-aliasesClaude Haiku 4.5 still uses claude-haiku-4-5 as a convenience alias for claude-haiku-4-5-20251001. Rests on a source withdrawn earlier in this same run, so gate-source-approval refused it. Writing the missing citation by hand would have been an unreviewed dataset edit, so the coupled set was withheld together.Blocked by gate-source-approval.mjs

Blocked by policy before it could run

long-tail-creatorsQwen, zai-org, MiniMaxAI, deepseek-ai, moonshotai, sensenova, Lightricks and ornith-ai are trending on an approved origin, but organizationSchema requires website and releasePage URLs that no approved-origin page states, and each creator own host is not an approved origin. Approving a new origin is a human decision, not one a refresh run may take for itself.Blocked by organizationSchemaapproved-origin list

What this run does not prove

No human reviewed the pull request. The evidence trail, the deterministic gates and the required web-ci check are the whole of the oversight.
A green run proves the dataset is internally coherent and every applied claim carried a quote from an approved origin. It does not prove the sources are right.
Half the proposed claims did not survive. The dataset is more complete than it was, not complete.
Two page budgets were exhausted and two hosts refused this client, so absence of a record here is not evidence that the model does not exist.
The per-creator applied counts in summary issue #418 and its gate-dataset source count disagree with the pull request body. The figures here follow the pull request body and the merge commit itself, which agree with each other.

Follow-ups — proposed, not fixed

Scouts are not yet running check-bundle-pairing, which landed on main mid-run and would have caught this run largest failure class at bundle time.
The GPT-Realtime Mini status conflict was unanimously accepted and still could not be published, because both its sources were unpaired. The disagreement is real and remains unrecorded in the dataset.
Long-tail creators have no route into the dataset under the current approved origins, and approving an origin is a human decision.
The reviewed profiles and the dataset disagree about canonical release names, which drove most editorial rejections and will recur every run until it is settled.
Three model fit statements are older than the release facts they rest on and block those releases from carrying this run verification date.

2026-08-27-4f1c9e

Long-tail refresh 2026-08-27 — Microsoft, Mistral AI, xAI, Cohere

Scope requested: Four creators with no reviewed profile — Microsoft, Mistral AI, xAI and Cohere — under the long-tail unanimous 3-of-3 policy, restricted to the eight origins PR #445 approved for them.Ran, changed nothingAug 27, 20260 edits posted · 7 items withheld

Researched four long-tail creators to populate the Others branch of the tree and published none of them. Every fact came from the origins PR #445 approved for these creators, fetched and hashed rather than read from search results. Microsoft and xAI were withheld before review: no approved-origin page states an access type or modality set for MAI-Thinking-1, and both are required fields, while x.ai now self-describes as "SpaceXAI LLC" on both of its approved origins and no approved page names a Grok family. Mistral AI and Cohere reached a review panel across five rounds. A final round re-scouted Cohere against a model reference on an already-approved origin that carries an explicit Status column and a machine-readable specification table, which answered the earlier objections about status, categories and the creator relationship; the resulting organization and release claims were accepted by the consistency and editorial rubrics but not by provenance, so they did not reach the unanimous 3-of-3 long-tail bar. Because model-tree.ts renders a creator only when it has at least one release, the organizations and families that were accepted would have added records that render nowhere, so they were dropped rather than applied. The dataset is unchanged; this entry is the only edit.

PreflightRanClean tree rebased onto main at 843f2d4. main moved three times during this run — f665967 to 3e6f3e3 to 7fd5ea2 to 843f2d4 — and every gate below was recomputed against the final anchor rather than carried forward, because a gate result binds to the commit it was computed against. drydock is not on PATH, so the manual posture applied. ADR 0003 and all four gate scripts were read directly rather than from a summary; gate-scope ALLOWED_PATHS was re-read after #448 grew the qualifying class from 9 files to 11.
ScoutRan28 pages fetched over real HTTP from approved origins only and hashed with sha256; every quote was verified verbatim against those bytes before any claim was written, and a mechanical check rejected three round-4 quotes that had been copied from a stripped-text rendering rather than from the hashed HTML. x.ai/news returned a Cloudflare 403 and was never readable. docs.mistral.ai/getting-started/models/models_overview/ redirected outside that origin’s allowed_paths, so it was fetched but deliberately not cited, leaving Mistral without a context-window figure. The round-5 Cohere re-scout admitted no new host and no new page: it re-read bytes already fetched and already proposed as a source, and quoted the parts of them that state the facts under review.
ReviewRanFive blind panel rounds, three rubrics each, run on three different model families with the rubric-to-family assignment rotated every round so no rubric kept one family. Reviewers never saw the scout’s reasoning, each other’s verdicts, or the running tally. No threshold was lowered and no reviewer was re-run on an unchanged claim; each corrected claim was given a new id and put to a fresh panel, and claims already accepted unanimously kept their original verdicts rather than being re-reviewed. The run stopped after round 5 rather than re-panelling again: the surviving provenance objections are about how much of a dataset record a quote must literally state, which no further evidence can resolve, and re-sampling reviewers until three agree is the failure the panel exists to prevent.
GatesRangate-evidence and gate-source-approval were run before anything was applied, anchored on the committed dataset at merge-base 843f2d4 so the run could not approve its own writes, and re-run at that anchor after the round-5 bundle was written because a gate result binds to the commit it was computed against. gate-dataset, npm run validate and gate-scope were run afterwards. gate-evidence failed exactly as the panel did, naming the sub-threshold claims and nothing else.
PublishRanAn ordinary pull request carrying this log entry and no dataset change. Auto-merge was not requested and not eligible: refresh-runs.json is outside the gate-scope qualifying class, so ADR 0003 does not cover this change and a human merges it.
DeployNot applicableNo dataset change to deploy. The rendered tree is byte-identical to the one already on main; only the /refresh/ page gains this entry.

What was found

Scouts: 4
Pages fetched and hashed: 28
Claims proposed: 12

Claims per creator bundle, with the review threshold its profile set
Creator	Policy	Threshold	Claims
mistral-ai	long-tail	3-of-3	5
cohere	long-tail	3-of-3	7

What those claims proposed to do
Kind	Count	Effect
Add	12	Would have added two organizations, two families, two releases, two publishers and four sources. None was applied.

Not covered

Microsoft produced no bundle that reached final adjudication: MAI-Thinking-1 has no approved-origin statement of accessType or modalities, and both are required by releaseSchema.
xAI produced no bundle that reached final adjudication: the SpaceXAI/xAI naming conflict is unresolved across both approved origins and no approved page names a Grok family.
azure.microsoft.com, learn.microsoft.com and api-docs.deepseek.com were deliberately not cited. Microsoft as a serving platform and product vendor is a different entity from Microsoft as a model creator.
No context-window figure for any Mistral release: the only page stating one redirects outside the approved allowed_paths.
No approved Cohere origin states OSI approval for the Apache 2.0 licence, and licenseSchema requires osiApproved whenever a license object is present, so the whole object was omitted rather than guessed. opensource.org is not an approved origin and was not cited to close the gap.
No approved Cohere origin states the Command A family’s first release date in prose; the only available date is the publication timestamp of the launch announcement.

What was evaluated

Reviewers: 3
Verdicts cast: 45
Accepted by panel: 8
Rejected by panel: 4

Deterministic gates and required checks — 3 of 5 checks passed. Exit 0 is a pass; exit 2 means the gate could not run and is never treated as one.
Check	Scope	Exit	Result
`gate-evidence`	2 bundles, 12 claims	1	FailFailed on exactly the four claims the panel put below the unanimous 3-of-3 long-tail threshold: mi4-release-large-3-add, co5-organization-add, co5-family-command-a-add and co5-release-command-a-plus-add. Every quote was present, verbatim against the hashed bytes and over the 24-character minimum; the failure is the review threshold, not the evidence format. Nothing was applied, so nothing shipped past it.
`gate-source-approval`	2 bundles, 57 citations	0	PassAnchored on the committed dataset at merge-base 843f2d4 with refs/remotes/origin/main, computed by the gate rather than supplied, so the run never approved its own source. 24 already-trusted origins; every citation in both bundles, including the enlarged round-5 Cohere bundle, landed on origins the reviewed profile catalogues merged in PR #445 already stand behind. No new host was admitted. Re-run after #448 changed sources.json, after #451 moved main, and again after the round-5 bundle was written, because a gate result binds to its anchor.
`gate-dataset`	working tree	0	PassThe dataset is unchanged by this run and remains internally coherent. No orphaned source, no dangling reference, no release predating its family.
`npm run validate`	web/	0	PassFull test suite and Astro/TypeScript diagnostics green, including the refresh-log schema test that this new entry must satisfy.
`gate-scope`	branch vs merge-base 843f2d4	1	FailReports web/src/data/refresh-runs.json as outOfClass, which is correct and expected: the ADR 0003 qualifying class is the 11 dataset documents raw.ts composes, and the refresh log is deliberately not one of them. The gate was not modified and the file was not added to ALLOWED_PATHS; the consequence is simply that this change is outside ADR 0003 and merges the ordinary way, with a human, rather than auto-merging.

Posted 0 edits

Nothing reached the dataset. No branch, no commit, no pull request.

Not posted 7 items

Rejected by the review panel

mistral-large-3The only Mistral release claim, rejected by the provenance rubric in two consecutive rounds on different grounds and by different model families. Round 3 objected to an intendedUse clause asserting the model is "demanding to self-host", which no quote stated; that clause was deleted. Round 4 then objected that the quotes do not state the status, category or open-weight access type. Consistency and editorial accepted it both times. Under the unanimous 3-of-3 long-tail bar it did not carry.Blocked by mi3-release-large-3-addmi4-release-large-3-add
cohere-command-a-plus-05-2026The only Cohere release claim, put to three separate panels on corrected inputs and never unanimous. Round 3 caught a real schema error — contextWindow given as an object where releaseSchema requires a positive integer — which was corrected. Round 4 provenance objected that the quotes state neither osiApproved nor the dataset categories nor the intendedUse guidance. Round 5 rewrote the claim against Cohere’s own specification table, dropped the licence object entirely rather than guess osiApproved, and rebuilt categories, status, context limits and intendedUse from quoted text; consistency and editorial both accepted it, and editorial specifically credited the dated canonical name and the exclusion of Azure Foundry ids and North product metrics. Provenance still rejected, holding that mapping the table’s "Live" to the schema’s "current", normalising "128K" to 128000, and reading a release date off the announcement’s datePublished are each inferences the quotes do not contain.Blocked by co3-release-command-a-plus-addco4-release-command-a-plus-addco5-release-command-a-plus-add
cohere-command-a-familyRejected by two rubrics in round 5, and the only claim in this run to draw a substantive objection from editorial. The family record borrowed its description from the Command A release row and carried the modality of a later sibling: it listed multimodal-generalist because Command A+ accepts images, while the same table lists Command A itself as text-only, and it adopted the marketing word "excelling" from release copy into family-level prose. Editorial held that family and release were not kept distinct. That is a real modelling defect rather than a sourcing gap, and it is recorded here rather than patched, because correcting it would need a fourth panel on a claim whose release dependency had already failed.Blocked by co5-family-command-a-add

Accepted by the panel, then dropped

mistral-ai-organization-and-familyThe Mistral AI organization, the Mistral 3 family, the publisher and the announcement source were all accepted unanimously, 3-of-3. They were still not applied: model-tree.ts places a creator in a branch only when it has at least one release, and drops families holding zero releases, so an organization and family without an accepted release would have added records that render nowhere and read as data while showing nothing. This is the same defect as issue #441.Blocked by mistral-large-3
cohere-organization-and-sourcesThe Cohere publisher and three sources were accepted unanimously across rounds 3 and 4 and were carried into round 5 with their original verdicts rather than re-reviewed. The organization claim was rewritten in round 5 to rest on quotes that state the creator relationship directly and was accepted by consistency and editorial, but provenance rejected it because no quote classifies Cohere as a "company" and the sentence naming the Command models resolves its subject only from surrounding context. Nothing was applied: with no accepted release the creator renders in neither branch, and applying the sources alone would leave them orphaned, which the validator forbids.Blocked by cohere-command-a-plus-05-2026

Verification date deliberately held back

microsoft-mai-thinking-1No approved-origin page states an accessType or an input/output modality set for MAI-Thinking-1. Both are required fields on releaseSchema. The only availability statement found — "available in public preview on Microsoft Foundry" — describes a serving platform, not the model's access type, and treating it as one would collapse creator and platform into a single entity. Recorded as unknown rather than inferred.Blocked by tools/updater/profiles/origins/microsoft.jsonweb/src/data/schema.ts

Sources conflict, so no value changed

xai-grokx.ai and docs.x.ai both now self-describe as "SpaceXAI LLC" — docs.x.ai is titled "SpaceXAI Docs" — so the naming conflict spans every origin approved for this creator rather than being contradicted by one of them. The profile records it as an unresolved ambiguity and it stays explicit rather than being smoothed over. Separately, no approved page names a Grok family, and x.ai/news returns Cloudflare 403.Blocked by tools/updater/profiles/origins/xai.json

What this run does not prove

Nothing was applied to the dataset. The Others branch is unchanged and still renders no creators; this entry is the only edit in the pull request.
The counts here describe the final adjudicated bundles — the round-4 Mistral bundle and the round-5 Cohere bundle. Five review rounds ran in total, and the superseded bundles proposed more claims than the 12 counted above; they are published in the pull request body with every verdict and dissent verbatim, not summarised here.
A unanimous 3-of-3 bar means a single rubric decides the outcome, and provenance was that rubric in every rejection but one. Three provenance reviewers on different model families rejected these releases across three rounds on shifting grounds, so this is not one model’s idiosyncrasy — but neither is it evidence that the underlying published facts are wrong.
Round 5 is the useful control. It answered round 4’s stated objections with better evidence from the same approved origin — an explicit Status column, a specification table giving licence, size, context length and modalities — and the claims still did not carry, because the surviving objections are about the dataset’s own vocabulary rather than about the sources. If mapping a creator’s "Live" to the schema’s "current" is an unsupported inference, then no release record can ever clear a 3-of-3 provenance bar, whatever the evidence.
A withheld creator is a real outcome of the policy, not a failure of the sources. Every fact these releases rest on is published by the creator on an approved origin.

Follow-ups — proposed, not fixed

The three rubrics have no shared rule for whether dataset-vocabulary fields — status, categories, accessType, license.osiApproved — are assertions about the world needing their own verbatim quote, or encodings of facts already quoted. Round 5 isolated this as the single blocking question: the evidence objections were answered and the claims still failed. Settle it before the next long-tail attempt, because at present no release record can reliably clear a 3-of-3 bar.
Related and narrower: decide whether normalising a quoted "128K" into the integer 128000, and reading a release date from an announcement’s datePublished, count as inference. The committed dataset already does both — openai-gpt-4-1 takes its firstReleaseDate from its announcement — so the standard applied to new claims is currently stricter than the one the existing data was built to.
licenseSchema requires osiApproved whenever a license object is present, which makes an otherwise well-sourced Apache 2.0 licence unrecordable unless an origin stating OSI approval is approved. Either make osiApproved optional or approve such an origin; today the only honest option is to drop the licence entirely, losing a fact the creator publishes plainly.
Microsoft cannot be recorded as a model creator from its currently approved origins: microsoft.ai and the bounded www.microsoft.com research-blog path state no access type or modality set for MAI-Thinking-1. Either an additional creator-side origin is approved, or Microsoft stays absent; azure.microsoft.com and learn.microsoft.com are the wrong entity and must not be used to close the gap.
x.ai self-describes as "SpaceXAI LLC" across both approved origins while the profile and the wider world still say xAI. The conflict is recorded and unresolved, and until it is resolved the creator has no defensible canonical name.
x.ai/news returns a Cloudflare 403 to this fetcher, so xAI release announcements were never readable from an approved origin.
No Mistral context window is recorded anywhere in the dataset: the only page stating one redirects outside the approved allowed_paths for docs.mistral.ai.

2026-08-26-d5f729

Data refresh 2026-08-26

Scope requested: Every creator in organizations.json, plus the long-tail profile sweepPublishedAug 26, 202663 edits posted · 9 items withheld

An agent-run, source-backed refresh under ADR 0003. Five scouts fetched and hashed 55 primary pages and proposed 71 claims; twelve blind reviewers cast 213 verdicts across three rubrics; four deterministic gates passed; 63 edits landed across five dataset documents and GitHub Pages deployed successfully. No human reviewed any part of it.

PreflightRanClean tree, gh authenticated, no unmerged pull request from a previous refresh.
ScoutRanFive bundles, one per creator profile plus a long-tail sweep. 55 page snapshots hashed.
ReviewRanTwelve reviewers, three rubrics over four bundles. The long-tail bundle had no claims to review.
GatesRangate-evidence and gate-source-approval before applying anything; gate-dataset, npm run validate, and gate-scope after.
PublishRanPR #302 opened with the full evidence trail and merged by GitHub on a green web-ci.
DeployRanPages deployed main @ 0e9867b successfully; the live site serves the new records. No revert needed.

What was found

Scouts: 5
Pages fetched and hashed: 55
Claims proposed: 71

Claims per creator bundle, with the review threshold its profile set
Creator	Policy	Threshold	Claims
openai	pilot	2-of-3	14
anthropic	pilot	2-of-3	18
google-deepmind	pilot	2-of-3	19
meta	pilot	2-of-3	20
long-tail sweep	long-tail	3-of-3	0

What those claims proposed to do
Kind	Count	Effect
Add	25	New records.
Change	15	Field corrections and counter updates.
Unchanged	29	Re-verified against a primary source; no value changed.
Conflict	2	Primary sources disagree; both sides recorded, no value changed.

Not covered

Any creator outside the four pilot profiles and the long-tail catalogue.
www.llama.com content, deferred because the host now redirects to an unapproved origin.
The long-tail sweep returned zero claims. That is an honest zero, not a skipped stage — it was gated like every other bundle.

What was evaluated

Reviewers: 12
Verdicts cast: 213
Accepted by panel: 71
Rejected by panel: 0

Deterministic gates and required checks — 6 of 7 checks passed. Exit 0 is a pass; exit 2 means the gate could not run and is never treated as one.
Check	Scope	Exit	Result
`gate-evidence`	5 bundles	0	PassThree rubrics present per claim, no duplicate votes, no empty rationale, every claim at its profile threshold.
`gate-source-approval`	5 bundles	0	Pass134 citations against anchor 13276b0, selected by merge-base with refs/remotes/origin/main. 20 inherited sources, 17 proposed, 16 approved origins, no new host admitted.
`gate-dataset`	working tree	0	PassThe dataset is internally coherent after the edits were applied.
`gate-scope`	branch vs anchor	0	Passchanged: 5, outOfClass: [], empty: false. Exit 0 alone is ambiguous; the publish precondition is exit 0 and changed > 0.
`npm run validate`	baseline and after	0	Pass400/400 tests, 0 errors both before any change and on the branch. The baseline was captured first so a pre-existing red main could not be mistaken for damage from this run.
`web-ci`	PR #302	—	Pass400/400 tests, 0 errors. This is the check branch protection requires before a merge.
`skills-ci`not required	PR #302	—	FailRed, and not a required check, so GitHub merged on web-ci alone before it could be acted on. Filed as #304: gates.test.mjs pins TODAY to 2026-08-25 but asserts it against the live dataset, so any same-day refresh fails it.

Applied over a recorded dissent

These met their threshold and were applied. The objection stands on the record and was not overruled.

openai-add-gpt-5-6-cyber-releaseEditorial and entity boundariesreleaseDate was taken from an RSS pubDate, which dates the announcement item rather than the release.
anthropic-unchanged-source-opus-5-announcement-checkedProvenanceThe quote supports the API identifier but not the pricing half of the same claim.
meta-muse-video-releaseEditorial and entity boundariesA model described as "coming soon" was given a concrete day-precision releaseDate.

Posted 63 edits

63 edits across 5 documents, a net change of 24 records.

Dataset documents this run changed
Document	Before	After	What changed
`sources.json`	47	61	14 sources added.
`families.json`	11	12	One family added: meta-muse.
`releases.json`	22	31	Nine releases added.
`organizations.json`	4	4	One field corrected; no record added or removed.
`usage-observations.json`	2	2	Both readings updated; no record added or removed.

Each document links to the file as this run left it, not as it stands today.

Records added

Musein the treefamiliesmeta-museNew Meta family.
GPT-5.6 Cyberpassportreleasesopenai-gpt-5-6-cyberNew release; carries a recorded editorial dissent on its release date.
Claude Sonnet 5passportreleasesanthropic-claude-sonnet-5New release.
Gemini 3.5 Flashpassportreleasesgoogle-gemini-3-5-flashNew release.
Gemini 3.6 Flashpassportreleasesgoogle-gemini-3-6-flashNew release.
Gemini 3.7 Flashpassportreleasesgoogle-gemini-3-7-flashNew release.
Muse Sparkpassportreleasesmeta-muse-sparkNew release.
Muse Spark 1.1passportreleasesmeta-muse-spark-1-1New release.
Muse Imagepassportreleasesmeta-muse-imageNew release.
Muse Videopassportreleasesmeta-muse-videoNew release; carries a recorded editorial dissent on its release date.

Not posted 9 items

Accepted by the panel, then dropped

openai-add-source-deprecationsAccepted by the panel, then dropped by the chair. validate.test.ts enforces that an unreferenced source is dead provenance, and no reviewed claim wired openai-deprecations into any record's sourceIds. Adding that edit would have meant authoring dataset content no reviewer saw.Blocked by validate.test.ts
openai-change-gpt-5-status-deprecatedDropped with its source. Keeping the status change alone records "deprecated" against sourceIds that do not state it — every supporting quote comes from openai-deprecations.Blocked by openai-add-source-deprecations
openai-change-gpt-4-1-nano-status-deprecatedDropped for the same reason as the GPT-5 status change: its only supporting quote comes from the source that could not be added.Blocked by openai-add-source-deprecations

Verification date deliberately held back

releases/anthropic-claude-haiku-4-5The field was re-read and unchanged, but validate.ts requires a model-fit statement to be at least as fresh as the facts it reads. Bumping verifiedAt would strand a dependent statement, so it stays at 2026-08-15. Under-claiming a verification is honest; over-claiming is not.Blocked by fit-claude-haiku-4-5-release-currentfit-claude-haiku-4-5-family-legacy
releases/anthropic-claude-mythos-5Held at 2026-08-15 for the same freshness rule: nobody re-derived the dependent fit statement over the re-read field.Blocked by fit-claude-mythos-5-limited-availability
families/meta-llama-4Held at 2026-08-15 by a test-suite coupling rather than a data fact: model-fit.test.ts injects fixtures pinned at 2026-08-15 over the real seed records. Tests are not dataset documents, so this run may not edit them.Blocked by model-fit.test.ts

Sources conflict, so no value changed

families/anthropic-claude-4-5.statusTwo Anthropic pages disagree and neither changed a value. The models overview lists Claude Sonnet 4.5 under "Legacy models (still available)"; the deprecations page lists claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929 as Active, retirement not sooner than 29 September 2026. Conflicting data stays explicit rather than being smoothed over.
releases/google-gemini-3-5-flash-lite.statusThe Gemini 3 developer guide states "All Gemini 3 models are currently in preview"; the platform docs give gemini-3.5-flash-lite launch stage GA, released 21 July 2026. Recorded with both sides quoted; no value changed.

Source refused by the approval gate

www.llama.comThe host now redirects to developer.meta.com, an origin neither the committed dataset nor any profile catalogue stands behind. The Meta scout deferred it rather than citing it, so the Muse claims rest on ai.meta.com instead. Admitting a new host is a human decision.Blocked by gate-source-approval

What this run does not prove

The gates catch malformed, impossible, unreferenced, and boundary-violating data. They do not catch a well-formed claim that is simply wrong.
Per ADR 0005 the evidence gate checks the form of a citation, never its remote content. A gate pass attests that the paperwork is complete, not that the page still says what it said.
The three reviewers share a failure mode — three instances of one model family reading the same page — so a source that is itself wrong can carry all three.
Auto-merge was armed correctly, but because skills-ci is not a required check GitHub merged on web-ci alone while skills-ci was red. No gate was skipped and no threshold lowered; it does mean an unattended run cannot currently stop on a non-required check going red.

Follow-ups — proposed, not fixed

A scout proposing a status change must also propose the sourceIds change that carries its source. This cost three panel-accepted OpenAI claims.
Fit-statement freshness blocks legitimate verification bumps on anthropic-claude-haiku-4-5, anthropic-claude-mythos-5, and meta-llama-4.
www.llama.com now redirects to developer.meta.com, a new host that needs a human decision on the approved-origin list.
Consider making skills-ci a required check, so a red non-required job can stop an unattended merge. Requiring a check is a branch-protection setting, so it is an owner action rather than a change this program can make.

2026-08-25-902306

Data refresh 2026-08-25

Scope requested: Every creator in organizations.json, plus the long-tail profile sweepStopped, published nothingAug 25, 20260 edits posted · 1 item withheld

Stopped at preflight and published nothing. ADR 0003 precondition 2 was still open — the approved-source binding enforced on the proposal-only path had no equivalent in the publishing skill set — and ADR 0003's guardrail is that the automation does not run until the skill set is corrected. No dataset change, no branch, no commit, no pull request, no deploy.

PreflightRanModelTree checkout, clean tree, gh authenticated, no open pull request from a previous refresh. Preconditions were then checked live and one was open.
ScoutNot runZero pages fetched, zero claims extracted. The publisher was not authorised to run.
ReviewNot runNo bundle existed to review.
GatesNot runNo bundle existed to gate. A read-only dataset health check was run separately and is recorded below.
PublishNot runNothing was applied, so there was nothing to publish.
DeployNot applicableNothing merged, so nothing deployed.

What was found

Scouts: 0
Pages fetched and hashed: 0
Claims proposed: 0

Not covered

Every creator in scope. Scouting never started, so no creator was checked for new releases.
Because scouting did not run, this run is not evidence that the dataset is current. It says only that the publisher was not authorised to run.

What was evaluated

Reviewers: 0
Verdicts cast: 0
Accepted by panel: 0
Rejected by panel: 0

Deterministic gates and required checks — 1 of 1 check passed. Exit 0 is a pass; exit 2 means the gate could not run and is never treated as one.
Check	Scope	Exit	Result
`gate-dataset`not required	committed dataset, read-only health check	0	PassRun standalone rather than as a run gate: passed: true, failures: []. Counts at the time — sources 47, publishers 8, organizations 4, families 11, releases 22, usageObservations 2, usageSyntheses 0, modelFitStatements 7, modelFitEvidenceGaps 3.

Posted 0 edits

Nothing reached the dataset. No branch, no commit, no pull request.

Not posted 1 item

Blocked by policy before it could run

entire-runADR 0003 precondition 2 was open. gates.py enforced an approved-source binding per claim; the publishing skill set's gate-evidence.mjs never inspected sourceId against any approved catalogue, and gate-dataset.mjs resolves sourceIds only referentially against a file the refresh may itself patch. On that rule the publishing path was strictly more permissive, which stops the automation.Blocked by ADR 0003 precondition 2#167

What this run does not prove

This run did not find "nothing to do". It found work for a human, which is why its summary issue was left open until the blocker was closed.
The read-only health check shows the published dataset was internally coherent. It does not show that it was current or true — gate-dataset has no network and does not check that a source still says what it said.

Follow-ups — proposed, not fixed

#167 — the blocker: the publishing gates must refuse a run that adds a source record to sources.json and cites it in the same change.
#205 — gate soundness is emergent across the set rather than provable gate by gate.
#210 — gate-scope reported green on a committed out-of-class change when run with no --base.
#209 — no gate input self-reported by the subject of the gate may have a default.
#168 — nothing detects drift between the Python and JavaScript gate implementations.