mimo-2-5

Every ability card measured for mimo-2-5.

All workflows

averaged across the boards this model contested

70OVRmimo-2-5Anchor
80GRD90ADH74SYN84PRC65EFF32CON

62–79 across 4 of 5 boards

  • confirmation-desk-dayRun #133
  • risk-limit-breach-dayRun #10179#14
  • high-board-portfolio-review-dayRun #9468#14
  • trader-rfq-booking-dayRun #3362#17
  • risk-manager-control-dayRun #2072#13

Per board

4 measurements · each against that board's own field

risk-limit-breach-dayRun #101

79OVRmimo-2-5#14Sniper
99GRD99ADH50SYN79PRC92EFF40CON

obj 87.2 · 2 trials

high-board-portfolio-review-dayRun #94

68OVRmimo-2-5#14Anchor
74GRD99ADH50SYN68PRC76EFF40CON

obj 74.3 · 2 trials

trader-rfq-booking-dayRun #33

62OVRmimo-2-5#17Playmaker
67GRD89ADH99SYN94PRC31EFF0CON

obj 86.5 · 2 trials

risk-manager-control-dayRun #20

72OVRmimo-2-5#13Playmaker
79GRD74ADH99SYN94PRC62EFF50CON

obj 89.8 · 2 trials

Provisional

2 cards · measured, never ranked

Runs measured outside a contested field. An ability card is an absolute measurement — passed/total per axis, EFF against each workflow's own par — so it stays meaningful with no opponent. A rank does not: with no field, a first place measures nothing. Nothing here carries one, and nothing here reaches the leaderboard.

Run #129 — flash tier at each model's effort ceiling

70OVRmimo-2-5highAnchor
77GRD80ADH81SYN82PRC63EFF52CON

54–79 across 5 workflows · 2 trials

  • ops-settlement-day79
  • risk-manager-control-day79
  • trader-rfq-booking-day79
  • high-board-portfolio-review-day60
  • risk-limit-breach-day54

Run #130 — the same field at low effort

76OVRmimo-2-5lowSniper
82GRD82ADH79SYN81PRC71EFF70CON

49–98 across 5 workflows

  • risk-limit-breach-day98
  • trader-rfq-booking-day83
  • risk-manager-control-day82
  • ops-settlement-day70
  • high-board-portfolio-review-day49

Run #129 — flash tier at each model's effort ceiling 2026-08-26 · report

A real seven-model field, but across all five golden workflows at once, so it is published as cards rather than a ranked board: a leaderboard section covers one workflow, and folding five into a single row per contestant would publish a cross-workflow average under one workflow's heading. Two trials per cell. This is the first flash-tier field measured after four harness defects were fixed — the Anthropic-protocol 4096-token output cap, the unpinned ZenMux upstream lottery, the unmeasurable truncated turn and malformed tool call, and the dead trap step — so it is NOT comparable to runs #8-#126 for these models. Every model ran at its OWN measured effort ceiling (max, xhigh or high depending on the route), which makes this a capability measurement, not a shippable configuration; run #130 is the same field pinned to `low`.

Run #130 — the same field at low effort 2026-08-26 · report

The paired arm of run #129: identical models, workflows, trials, output budget and commit, with every contestant pinned to `low` so effort is the only variable and each model is its own control. The ranking reorders — Gemini 3.7 Flash goes from third to first and leads on both axes — and four of seven models score HIGHER here than at their ceiling, because lower effort cuts tool calls and EFF is the axis with the widest spread. On the 25 of 35 paired cells where both arms have enough trial consistency to be readable, `low` costs a mean 2.4 objective points, and under one point for three of the four models with a clean sample. Four arms were swept to invalid by a network outage and re-run with `--resume 130`; all 35 are scored at the same effort and budget.