A careful tok/s re-test (bench.sh narrative n=5, MEASURED no-spec controls,
three v0.3.0 images: efe856397 / e0663be / 63abcd3) shows DFlash prose is
net-POSITIVE everywhere — Qwen single Q5 +27% (45.7 vs 35.9 no-spec), Qwen
dual Q8 +52% (35.6 vs 23.4), Gemma single Q4 +28-31% (44.6 vs 34.8). The
earlier "v0.3.0-wide prose-acceptance regression (~0.07 AR / net-negative)"
was a DOUBLE error: (1) over-reading the noisy/prompt-dependent acceptance-rate
diagnostic (the same efe856397 image we logged at ~0.07 now reads ~0.32 AR at
the same tok/s — Anbeeld's #288 AR caution was right), and (2) a wrong no-spec
baseline (we'd used ~37; the real dual-Q8 no-spec is 23.4). The new adaptive-DM
HEAD 63abcd3 is neutral (tok/s flat). Build-arch ruled out (a 3090 runs identical
sm_86 SASS from a fat or single-arch binary).
- compose_registry.py: 5 beellama status_notes (measured slugs assert net-positive;
un-rebenched gemma-duals retract the claim without overclaiming).
- 5 beellama compose Caveats: same correction.
- docs/UPSTREAM.md row 38: regression clause retracted; prose-recovery half of
the promotion gate dropped.
- BENCHMARKS.md: added the v0.3.0 DFlash-vs-no-spec A/B note (no-spec baselines).
- (learnings/qwen3.6-27b.md + gemma-4-31b.md got dated append-only retractions;
reported to Anbeeld at discussion #288.)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <[email protected]>
