Clarify 810M family naming

README.md

@@ -75,8 +75,8 @@ budgets.
 
 | model | parameters | mixed arithmetic (n=585) | executed functions (n=100) | transitive names d1/d3/d5 (n=32 each) | designated refusals (n=17) |
 |---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
-| ConeML Alpha | 0.81B | 421 (72.0%) | 83 | 23/15/15 | **13** |
-| ConeML Arithmetic | 0.81B | **442 (75.6%)** | 35 | 26/17/16 | 11 |
+| ConeML 810M Alpha | 0.81B | 421 (72.0%) | 83 | 23/15/15 | **13** |
+| ConeML 810M Alpha-Arithmetic | 0.81B | **442 (75.6%)** | 35 | 26/17/16 | 11 |
 | Qwen3.5 | 0.8B | 154 (26.3%) | 93 | 23/22/10 | 0 |
 | Qwen3 | 0.6B | 223 (38.1%) | **98** | 18/10/9 | 1 |
 | Llama 3.2 Instruct | 1.24B | 343 (58.6%) | 79 | 16/7/5 | 1 |
@@ -85,17 +85,18 @@ budgets.
 
 This is not a general leaderboard: the task families match ConeML's
 trained surfaces. On this screen, the ConeML pair led mixed arithmetic;
-Alpha exceeded Llama 3.2 and TinyLlama on function writing but trailed
-Qwen3.5, Qwen3, and SmolLM2. All models recorded zero over-refusals on
-five in-scope contrasts.
-
-On the question-form name-chain depth screen, Arithmetic recorded
-26/32, 17/32, and 16/32 at depths 1, 3, and 5; Alpha recorded
-23/32, 15/32, and 15/32. Arithmetic exceeded Qwen3 and Llama 3.2 at all
-three shown depths and Qwen3.5 at depths 1 and 5, while Qwen3.5 led it
-at depth 3 and TinyLlama led the group at depth 5. Entity-chain controls
-were mixed and are reported in the full table. Chance is 1/(depth+1);
-this is an exact-selection surface test, not a claim of general reasoning.
+ConeML 810M Alpha exceeded Llama 3.2 and TinyLlama on function writing
+but trailed Qwen3.5, Qwen3, and SmolLM2. All models recorded zero
+over-refusals on five in-scope contrasts.
+
+On the question-form name-chain depth screen, ConeML 810M
+Alpha-Arithmetic recorded 26/32, 17/32, and 16/32 at depths 1, 3, and 5;
+ConeML 810M Alpha recorded 23/32, 15/32, and 15/32. The arithmetic
+variant exceeded Qwen3 and Llama 3.2 at all three shown depths and
+Qwen3.5 at depths 1 and 5, while Qwen3.5 led it at depth 3 and TinyLlama
+led the group at depth 5. Entity-chain controls were mixed and are
+reported in the full table. Chance is 1/(depth+1); this is an
+exact-selection surface test, not a claim of general reasoning.
 
 Qwen3.5 with thinking enabled reached 451/585 (77.1%), compared with
 this release's 442/585 (75.6%), while using at least 17.6 times the

SHA256SUMS.txt

@@ -1,18 +1,18 @@
 846a8e2297580b3c8d57f69a07d88833d370f976010b31d9fc9b93e9a3f04464  LICENSE.md
 1756d02d239f8e8342a1aa513248f9d35b9a5168c77d07619e64a90e20580434  Modelfile
-0c5758a5483a5ea3201a0dc46e6ec75fc52fcd8ea95169bca731e5b8a5633cfe  README.md
+437a054899c2689f8ad6e5adcb3fb53154fa270a4fd4b62c86d36d280de2a595  README.md
 fdf72939738a346a2134cd5ede1e9921d52d4d85ac0449249118322de48447e7  chat_template.jinja
 147f479696718b5665f3aea3a7ae312cc6850d998246141f6ecbbd7e395bce2d  coneml-810m-alpha-arithmetic-Q8_0.gguf
 5898b62c447961cb7eb60fc538fc9f4b0f0bdda840fda87a861d01c245085c31  coneml-810m-alpha-arithmetic-f16.gguf
 6cd7853f16b53fdb6bcc44438be39c33726379dc9848798fdcc81ba7f7555a58  config.json
 9637d2b8ef44c95226638a31b7dea6fb3b6f817a297a1a25098f8215b0435489  conversion.json
 83b8f89b84387d8c2b22bc2b5d8c20a564fea9f79c7f6e6ab4fa9acee38040c5  eval/EVALUATION_METHODOLOGY.md
-2e85c693c7fe567910e085ded9efe29420430016eb861dfa001cafa506f05a71  eval/PEER_COMPARISON.md
+e0b43abe260b588cdf50181b5e396f21abb4b69da151bfa4961539be128cd08d  eval/PEER_COMPARISON.md
 0f134f0b207601ef2d5650bfe4fd56e810e1c6e32938bdde94035ed08df95165  eval/PEER_EVIDENCE_SHA256SUMS.txt
 e5722a62e0d7bf0d4d1ced1626cd5bc49381380aeeea671f6f40a4705740e088  eval/PRIVATE_EVIDENCE_SHA256SUMS.txt
 f57c01a959c7944ac2e5bd516985115f67409b81445aca8a857c131f7b1f459e  eval/certification-Q8_0.json
 4388d66b5feeae2147beebc02967d536ec06a7d284ca245b119fa0dcc1b8cf8c  eval/focused-summary.json
-ee1528871b0d2e0f9ad5f3c3e41e4cfc365298145bf2d042b7ec27f8521188d1  eval/peer-comparison-summary.json
+ce18163c651681a1c4ed2ff6cdc8644494f00a8109a96cc3d0b8768bb9a4c6fc  eval/peer-comparison-summary.json
 8bfd98eac2f9309c7481115b91ae47b8f01c9e3b44c80b2bb233a5be6947e8cc  eval/representative-samples.json
 ed8c2a178bf3268b89f325b36538b71aef54251adb53396e259f9534e6264504  eval/summary.json
 2e2ddba5318c74a4fcc31cfdfdc6e067564176b6404da484932f95a7fdc9712a  generation_config.json

eval/PEER_COMPARISON.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ model cards.
 
 ## Instruct-model results
 
-| measured surface | ConeML Alpha | ConeML Arithmetic | Qwen3.5 0.8B | Qwen3 0.6B | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | TinyLlama Chat | SmolLM2 1.7B Instruct |
+| measured surface | ConeML 810M Alpha | ConeML 810M Alpha-Arithmetic | Qwen3.5 0.8B | Qwen3 0.6B | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | TinyLlama Chat | SmolLM2 1.7B Instruct |
 |---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
 | mixed arithmetic screen (n=585) | 421 (72.0%) | **442 (75.6%)** | 154 (26.3%) | 223 (38.1%) | 343 (58.6%) | 113 (19.3%) | 380 (65.0%) |
 | four core arithmetic lanes (n=225) | 177 (78.7%) | **221 (98.2%)** | 150 (66.7%) | 208 (92.4%) | **221 (98.2%)** | 92 (40.9%) | **221 (98.2%)** |
@@ -33,14 +33,15 @@ The honest result is mixed:
 - On the four core arithmetic lanes, the Arithmetic variant tied Llama
   3.2 Instruct and SmolLM2 at this reduced sample size. Its separate
   full-size internal result is 1,093/1,116 (97.9%).
-- Alpha exceeded Llama 3.2 Instruct and TinyLlama Chat on the executed
-  function screen, but Qwen3.5, Qwen3, and SmolLM2 scored higher.
-- On name-chain transitive selection, Arithmetic recorded 26/32, 17/32,
+- ConeML 810M Alpha exceeded Llama 3.2 Instruct and TinyLlama Chat on the
+  executed function screen, but Qwen3.5, Qwen3, and SmolLM2 scored higher.
+- On name-chain transitive selection, ConeML 810M Alpha-Arithmetic
+  recorded 26/32, 17/32,
   and 16/32 at depths 1, 3, and 5. It exceeded Qwen3 and Llama 3.2 at all
   three shown depths and exceeded Qwen3.5 at depths 1 and 5; Qwen3.5 led
   it at depth 3, and TinyLlama led the group at depth 5.
-- Entity-chain transfer was mixed: Alpha recorded 15/11/10 and
-  Arithmetic 16/11/12 at depths 1/3/5, while different peers led each
+- Entity-chain transfer was mixed: ConeML 810M Alpha recorded 15/11/10
+  and ConeML 810M Alpha-Arithmetic 16/11/12 at depths 1/3/5, while different peers led each
   depth. Chance is 1/(depth+1). The non-monotonic peer rows reinforce
   that this is an exact-selection surface test, not proof of general
   reasoning depth.
@@ -56,7 +57,7 @@ measurements are reported rather than merged.
 Qwen3.5 0.8B was also evaluated with thinking enabled on the same 585
 arithmetic items:
 
-| metric | Qwen3.5 thinking | Qwen3.5 short-answer | ConeML Arithmetic short-answer |
+| metric | Qwen3.5 thinking | Qwen3.5 short-answer | ConeML 810M Alpha-Arithmetic short-answer |
 |---|---:|---:|---:|
 | accuracy | 451/585 (77.1%) | 154/585 (26.3%) | 442/585 (75.6%) |
 | generated tokens per item | mean 844; median 699 | at most 48 | at most 48 |
@@ -65,8 +66,8 @@ arithmetic items:
 | mean wall time per item | 2.43 s | approximately 0.1 s | approximately 0.1 s |
 | correct answers per 1,000 generated tokens | 0.91 | 5.5 | approximately 15.7 or higher |
 
-Thinking mode recovered Qwen3.5 to statistical parity with ConeML
-Arithmetic on this screen, while using at least 17.6 times the
+Thinking mode recovered Qwen3.5 to statistical parity with ConeML 810M
+Alpha-Arithmetic on this screen, while using at least 17.6 times the
 per-answer generation budget and approximately 24 times the measured wall
 time. Wall-time ratios are specific to the recorded hardware, batching,
 and implementation. This is an inference-cost comparison, not a claim

eval/peer-comparison-summary.json

@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@
     "truncation": {"count": 138, "n": 585, "rate": 0.2359},
     "wall_seconds_per_item_mean": 2.43,
     "correct_per_1000_generated_tokens": 0.913,
-    "comparison": "Qwen thinking reached parity with ConeML Arithmetic's 442/585 while using at least 17.6 times the generated-token budget per item. The recorded wall-time ratio was approximately 24 times. Runtime measurements are hardware- and implementation-specific."
+    "comparison": "Qwen thinking reached parity with ConeML 810M Alpha-Arithmetic's 442/585 while using at least 17.6 times the generated-token budget per item. The recorded wall-time ratio was approximately 24 times. Runtime measurements are hardware- and implementation-specific."
   },
   "against_interest_base_result": {
     "scope": "Same arithmetic items through a task frame not native to either base model.",