Supersedes what commit 3446367 recorded. That message stated the A16 control
"settles a question" and quoted 12% contradiction detection against gen's 81%.
The quantization half of it stands; the deficit it was measuring does not exist.
brokkr-smithy-dev retracted the finding after the operator asked to see the
individual items. The task presented two mutually contradicting statements and
asked for "the contradicting statement" — but CONTRADICTION IS SYMMETRIC.
Neither statement was more the contradicting one, the model had no way to know
which had been inserted, and it consistently named the absolute claim: a
defensible reading that the labelling scored wrong on every single item.
The tell was there and both of us walked past it: 12% on a five-option task is
BELOW THE 20% CHANCE FLOOR. A below-chance score indicts the instrument before
it indicts the model. That should be the first reaction to a below-chance
result, not a late one, and it is now written into the README as such.
Retracted: "the model owns the contradiction deficit"; "domain tuning costs 43
points of contradiction detection" (which on a sound instrument does not shrink
but REVERSES); and every pre-fix T2 number for Gemma-4, MeroMero-v2, sec and
gen. A second defect surfaced during the fix — all generators shared one RNG, so
rewriting one task reshuffled every task after it.
What survives is real and worth separating out: the A16 control result holds.
Activation precision is close to free on this workload, every other task
identical across the W4A4 and W4A16 builds. The two staging confounds caught
before the run — the two Hub repos named NVFP4A16 that declare 4-bit
activations, and the stale chat template — were independent of the item defect
and remain load-bearing. On the corrected instrument Gemma leads the very axis
it was suspected of failing (94% against sec's 81% and gen's 50%); its actual
weak axis with thinking off is spatial composition at 69%.
Recorded as a dated superseded-claims table rather than a silent edit, per the
repo's quant-work convention, so notes elsewhere stop misleading people.
The stack had no README and now carries three model directories that look
interchangeable and are not: the BF16 QLoRA base that cannot be served here, the
W4A4 quant that is served, and the W4A16 build that exists solely as an
activation-axis control. Writing down which is which, and why, before someone
"simplifies" the compose to the BF16 path and rediscovers the OOM.
Also captures the A16 control procedure end to end, including the two confounds
found while staging it — the two Hub repos named NVFP4A16 that declare 4-bit
activations, and the stale chat template the real one ships — and the fact that
overriding the template is safe because the tokenizers are identical. Both sides
have now cross-checked this: brokkr independently diffed every non-quantization
config field of both builds against the upstream BF16 and found only
transformers_version differing. Residual risk recorded rather than hidden:
config identity is not weight identity and nobody has done a dequantization
pass.
The Gemma-4 flags are documented as architecture-level rather than
checkpoint-level, since that is why they survived the seat swap unchanged, and
the enable_thinking:false pin is called out as mandatory rather than stylistic —
without it every plain prose turn lands in reasoning_content with a null content
and every consumer breaks.
Notes the non-termination defect with thinking on (32 of 96 calls truncating at
12k tokens, all 16 constraint items among them, reasoning sound right up to the
point it fails to stop) and why VLLM_USE_V2_MODEL_RUNNER=0 is deliberately not
applied to a seat whose production mode is thinking-off.
No live change: the seat is still serving the W4A4 build. Displacing it for the
control run is an operator decision and is still open.
vh