minimax-m3

Every ability card measured for minimax-m3.

All workflows

averaged across the boards this model contested

64OVRminimax-m3Anchor
78GRD80ADH60SYN72PRC42EFF50CON

42–92 across 4 of 5 boards

  • confirmation-desk-dayRun #133
  • risk-limit-breach-dayRun #10192#11
  • high-board-portfolio-review-dayRun #9442#18
  • trader-rfq-booking-dayRun #3362#16
  • risk-manager-control-dayRun #2060#17

Per board

4 measurements · each against that board's own field

risk-limit-breach-dayRun #101

92OVRminimax-m3#11Sniper
99GRD86ADH99SYN93PRC92EFF89CON

obj 93.6 · 2 trials

high-board-portfolio-review-dayRun #94

42OVRminimax-m3#18Anchor
50GRD78ADH40SYN32PRC35EFF0CON

obj 48.6 · 2 trials

trader-rfq-booking-dayRun #33

62OVRminimax-m3#16Sniper
84GRD84ADH50SYN76PRC26EFF43CON

obj 79.3 · 2 trials

risk-manager-control-dayRun #20

60OVRminimax-m3#17Anchor
79GRD74ADH50SYN85PRC16EFF69CON

obj 79.5 · 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

72OVRminimax-m3maxAnchor
79GRD86ADH79SYN82PRC55EFF58CON

52–93 across 5 workflows · 2 trials

  • risk-limit-breach-day93
  • ops-settlement-day82
  • trader-rfq-booking-day81
  • high-board-portfolio-review-day52
  • risk-manager-control-day52

Run #130 — the same field at low effort

77OVRminimax-m3lowAnchor
80GRD88ADH87SYN80PRC56EFF79CON

61–98 across 5 workflows · 2 trials

  • risk-limit-breach-day98
  • ops-settlement-day86
  • risk-manager-control-day72
  • trader-rfq-booking-day66
  • high-board-portfolio-review-day61

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.