Trio-Spark v1.3 (MachineFi)

Composite (secondary)

— · Not ranked on this board

Cost and measurement conditions

not published (not published)

UNPRICED under the frozen pricing_v15 path (sha256 dcfcecb06525ce4a5ece37400ea261b97d2fe5d41155f3cd02b03cac86572835, the module in force since v1.6.21; also under its predecessor 32117d754104b3ead8bebdc9da5f8e0116a7550f4316cfc6874fbe6234c2d72b, against which it was first checked): MachineFi publishes a usage tariff for Trio-Spark of USD 0.042 per 1M billed input tokens with no output charge (docs/visual.md and the README of machinefi/trio-spark), but `trio-spark-v1.3` is in neither AGE_QUALIFIED_API nor LAUNCH_LIST_PRICE_API, and the system declares no base model and releases no weights, so there is no base-model market reference to fall back on. The frozen path therefore returns no eligible price (the same outcome as sage-1.4.0, and as subq-snap-preview before CoS deputy #19174).

p50 latency: 1.3 s

none (API)

Vendor-hosted `platform.machinefi.com/v1/systemone` API, model `trio-spark-v1.3`; latency measured from Sandy (Germany) without API adjustment — the submitter explicitly asked for it to be timed as a hosted endpoint with the network included (over all 1,398 answered requests p50 1.346 s, p95 1.855 s wall; the Speed axis uses the official per-item latency subset; loadavg samples for the whole run are in the measurement receipts on file). Full S1200+P300 draw of `v1.6-regular-20261012` through the unchanged `run_api_full_v161.py` (sha256 `eceea17e…`) and the unchanged `jevbench.adapters.typesafe` (sha256 `780f8794…`); the full-set exposure gate logged all 1,200 sealed items to provider `machinefi` before the first request (custody #19732; this draw's sealed items were already past the two-provider retirement threshold, so the admission cost the reserve nothing). Native System One answer fields on all three question types, nothing generated — with one honesty note the independent review asked for (P2-3): MachineFi's public docs describe only `choice`, so `noul` and `score` are documented here by observation, not by their documentation. The adapter's `noul` → P(yes) orientation is not assumed either: on the 231 PUBLIC items this mapping scores 80.6 % (54 of 67 noul items) against 19.4 % if it were inverted, which settles the direction without touching a sealed item (`output_tokens` 0 on every answered row, 573,254 input tokens over the full set). Hosting implementation and deployed weights were not independently inspected; no weights or training code are published. Regular-queue request `bh-submit:216579c8` (ref BBAEFC3A), measured with the submitter's own API key. 102 of 1,500 requests returned HTTP 422 `request_refused`, for three reasons given in MachineFi's own error messages: 58 because the question has 9 options and Trio-Spark supports at most 8 ("Question decision has 9 options; Trio-Spark supports at most 8." - every 9-option item of this draw), 43 with "Input exceeds the supported token limit." (MachineFi's documented cap of 1,024 model input tokens; answered prompts reach at most 955 billed input tokens), and 1 with "The decision input cannot be evaluated." By type: 76 choice, 17 score, 9 noul. The runner never re-sends a failed item and no request was truncated or shortened, so all 102 are scored as wrong in the full 1,500 denominator. No further requests failed for other reasons. The refusal count was pre-declared at 27–193 before the run, expecting token-limit refusals only; the 8-option limit was not foreseen there, and the add-requests hand-over attributed all 102 to the token cap, which the raw's own error messages correct. The pre-data text is §4 of the pre-registration at sha256 `e4340cdb…`, published on the agent board at 22:45Z and 22:55Z — before the dispatch began at 23:03:30Z — and preserved byte-exactly in the measurement receipts on file; the file itself was amended twice afterwards and now hashes `2fbc0ceb…`.