Was the work delivered at all?
Runs that ended with a working result
When both variants deliver a result, the scores are close: 19.6 vs 18.9 / 2011.
Obsigen · Measurement · as of 2026-10-22 · 137 reports since Aug 28
Every number on this page has a source, a date and a configuration in its footnote. We apply the same principle in the product.
We train GRID on our own test scenes. Customer data is not used for measurement or training - it is stored in the customer's own tenant.
measurement reports since Aug 28. The counter and the date come from the repository at every build of this page.
A number without a source and a date does not exist. In the product, numbers taken from files, data and web pages appear in an answer as a component with a reference to their source (file, page, URL, date). On this page, footnotes play that role: each index leads to the evaluation report (name and date), with the configuration that produced the result.
Measurement and GRID training use only our own test scenes. We prepare the battery scenes on which we measure models and train the GRID selection table ourselves. Customer files, conversations and results never enter the battery, the reports or GRID training.
Reports are files in the product repository: goal, configuration, rubric result, run cost, what we changed, what we don't know. We share full versions during deployment talks, once a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is signed.
The battery is a set of test scenes we prepare ourselves - from synthetic data and recordings of public websites (fixtures) - scored by a judge - a model with a rubric, not a human eyeballing it - and checked by a human where the rubric is not enough.
| class | what it checks |
|---|---|
| K1–K10 | conversation: identity, sources, refusals, handling uncertainty, “no heavy machinery for a simple hello” (K10: 6/62 - a simple question does not trigger the heavy mode) |
| R | tone: appreciation, closure, sycophancy, phrase ban list |
| D | documents: specifications, bills of quantities, CAD drawings (Obsigen Magnify), spreadsheets |
| D-device | the same with files on the user's device (Forge, Runtime): consent, paths, undo |
Counter: 137 measurement reports1 - since the first battery report on Aug 28. The counter and the date come from the repository at every build of this page, not from manual entry.
Not “works / doesn’t work”, but three numbers per turn: quality from the rubric, model cost and time to answer. We choose the default mode from these three, not from a model ranking. On this site we give cost and time in relative terms - amounts and minutes are in the full reports.
Titan is the default mode, not a flagship model - because 18/204 versus 19/204 is one point less, in exchange for ≈ 10×4 lower cost and ≈ 4×4 shorter time per turn.
You see the usage of every task in the usage panel. Cost in a measurement is the model cost, not the customer price - how we price.
| metric | result | context |
|---|---|---|
| Quality - Titan mode | 18/204 | GRID orchestration · open-weight models |
| Cost - Titan mode | ≈ 10× lower4 | relative to a flagship model |
| Time - Titan mode | ≈ 4× shorter4 | relative to a flagship model |
| Flagship model - reference point | 19/204 | a single model, no orchestration |
| Router - decision agreement | 39/39 (100%)5 | automatic choice of work mode, in the test battery |
| Response tone | 3.8 → 4.8 / 56 | factual, no empty compliments |
| Sycophancy | 0%6 | facts over approval, in the test battery |
| Automated tests | 828 tests7 | the whole platform |
We measure the rate of failed calls (CFR) separately for each host, model and regime, and separately for what the user sees, per button. Alert thresholds: ≤ 10% raw · ≤ 2% visible8. On top of that, tokens per second per provider - we know when “slow” means the provider, not us.
Fallbacks are in-family (the same model at a different provider), and with a fixed prompt prefix the cache reaches up to 98%9 on a direct connection to a provider in the EEA. Provider churn is a fact; we have a mechanism for it, not hope.
Turn-controller refactor: 4,576 → 170 lines10 - with an identity gate: recorded responses before and after the change compared byte for byte in 15 scenarios. Tests: 828 tests7; the Forge extension separately: 37/37 extension tests7.
The research question: what does GRID add if the model is the same? Five very hard programming tasks, three repetitions of each, the same model in both variants - once on its own, once driven by GRID.
Runs that ended with a working result
When both variants deliver a result, the scores are close: 19.6 vs 18.9 / 2011.
Very hard tasks, full scoring rubric
Index: model alone = 100. Model cost in the measurement, not a customer price
≈ 3.9× cheaper11 - even though a single run with Obsigen GRID costs 1.8×11 more.
Index: model alone = 100. We include it because without it the rest would not be honest
1.9× slower11 - checking the result takes time.
Source: internal Obsigen measurement, September 12–13, 2026 · the same model in both variants · 5 very hard programming tasks × 3 repetitions (small sample) · difference in mean score: p = 0.00211. Tasks passed: 7% → 47%11.
The difference is not in how the model writes - it is in whether the work gets finished. On easy tasks we measured no significant difference.
Measurement configuration: in the full report, shared under NDA.
Demo · 45 min
We show Obsigen live, online, on a document you bring - with no confidential data. Then a quote and deployment on dedicated infrastructure.