diff --git a/stacks/gemma4-charrp/README.md b/stacks/gemma4-charrp/README.md
index 6380a8d..f584ced 100644
--- a/stacks/gemma4-charrp/README.md
+++ b/stacks/gemma4-charrp/README.md
@@ -52,6 +52,37 @@ propagated through the ecosystem, not that one packager slipped.
 For both, point at the upstream file:
 `/tank/aimodels/gemma4-26b-a4b-it-bf16/chat_template.jinja`.
 
+### Measured: abliteration is close to free on this base (2026-08-24)
+
+Isolated properly — stock BF16 against llmfan46 BF16, same precision, same
+pinned upstream template, same 192 items, CoT off. **Abliteration was the only
+axis that moved.**
+
+| task | stock BF16 | heretic BF16 | items |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| T1 state / T3 constraint / T4 long-context / T5 control | 100% | 100% | 0 |
+| T2 contradiction | 75% | 59% | **−5** |
+| T6 spatial | 75% | 88% | **+4** |
+| **core** | **90.0%** | **89.4%** | −0.6 pts |
+
+**Net cost 0.6 points — but it MOVED capability rather than removing it.** Five
+items lost on contradiction detection, four gained on spatial composition,
+nearly cancelling. Nobody predicted a gain anywhere, least of all that
+direction.
+
+Consequence for the base choice: **llmfan46 stands.** There is no case for
+re-staging on TrevorJS at KL 0.09 over a 0.6-point net difference — the KL gap
+between the two builds is smaller than the gap this measurement failed to find.
+
+⚠ Read those as **~5 items and ~4 items at n=32**, not as −15.6/+12.5 percent.
+The percentages read more precisely than the measurement supports, and only
+marginals were run — no paired per-item analysis.
+
+⚠ **This says nothing about quantization.** Stock BF16 scores T2 75% where stock
+NVFP4 scored 94%, but those runs were n=32 and n=16 — different item counts mean
+different item sets, and the extra items are not guaranteed equally easy. That
+comparison is n-confounded and is not being made.
+
 ### Choosing an abliterated base — compare on published damage, not on names
 
 "Low damage" has a measurable proxy and the field spreads widely on it: