TSRGet The Daily Report
The Singularity Report

TSR Desk · science · 12 September 2026, 01:00 UTC

IBIB: A Protocol for Measuring Enterprise AI Systems by Serving Route, Not Model Identifier

What
IBIB: A Protocol for Measuring Enterprise AI Systems by Serving Route, Not Model Identifier
Who
arxiv.org
When
11 September 2026, 04:00 UTC
Category
Science
Primary source
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.10494
What is not known
This brief does not claim independent replication. Claims that appear only on X and not in the primary source stay unknown.

A gold-blind capability-binding preflight verifies that a route can execute the evaluation contract before any task reaches it; a reliability-inclusive first-pass scoring rule keeps failure in the score while keeping unsupported capability out; and adjudication is structurally score-blind. It comes from a paper posted to arXiv on 11 September 2026. Enterprises deploy systems, not checkpoints. Usable capability depends jointly on weights, serving route, precision, output contract, and harness, yet all 18 audited benchmarks score advertised model identifiers. We treat this as measurement error and give a protocol that makes it reportable. It has three parts. We call the protocol IB2 and release its algorithms, classification tables, request contract, and manifest schemas. Its reference instantiation, 128 locked tasks and 987 assertions over document, spreadsheet, chart, tool and database work, stays sealed: the procedure is the artifact, not the corpus. Across eleven systems, four results. Capability availability is measurable: two complete single-route runs on identical weights later failed distinct predicates of the finalized binding gate, while a third passed that gate before a fresh run. The advertised identifier exposed neither limit. Discrimination is not uniform: four of seven suites saturate under a six-system band, with the spread almost entirely from governed database work and multi-tab joins, so we report interval-backed resolution groups, not ranks; two of the nominal five-label output's four cuts fail multiplicity adjustment. Serving-arm choice moved one declared revision and precision from 77.38 to 82.54, paired interval [0.11,10.60], though the arms differ in access mode, harness generation, and the serving tool-call parser, and harness generation is a property of our evaluator, not any endpoint. Excluding failed responses from denominators changes the point ordering, so reliability inclusion changes a conclusion, not its wording.

Why it counts

A gold-blind capability-binding preflight verifies that a route can execute the evaluation contract before any task reaches it; a reliability-inclusive first-pass scoring rule keeps failure in the score while keeping unsupported capability out; and adjudication is structurally score-blind.

Sources

Primary source: primary source

What is not known

This brief does not claim independent replication. Claims that appear only on X and not in the primary source stay unknown.

No clip. The article still stands.