RAM labels describe the test computer, not this model’s memory requirement. Speed comparisons keep the 32 GB and 128 GB runs separate.
Runtime build: unrecorded · Local · test machine with 32 GB RAM · concurrency: 1
Thinking status: verified · probe 2 · scope Saved profile-level probe; exact historical template/build scope is not fully recorded..
Requested off does not prove an absence of reasoning. Saved checks do not establish unrecorded historical template or build details.
Overall across tasks
80.4 / 100
Nine categories, equally weighted · 9/9 eligible
Complete coverage for this setup. Quality only; speed is separate. How the index works →
What does it do well?
Select a category to explore the answers. Bars show what happened on every planned task. Incorrect answers and failures to finish both earn zero; technical problems and untested tasks stay unscored.
Exact scores and task times by suite
Each suite has its own metric and fixed task bank. The balanced index weights categories equally; individual scores and evidence remain available below.
This analysis covers this configuration across its recorded thinking conditions and test suites.
Use this configuration for small-project coding and, with thinking enabled, demanding reasoning or tightly specified answers. It handled those tests well, but longer jobs with tools remained uneven and thinking-on research-paper answers need scrutiny. Small coding tasks took a median 171.8 seconds without thinking in these runs, so allow for that wait. Check results before relying on it for unattended work.
Original analysis generated by GPT Astra · · Edited by Codex; agent reviewed by Codex · publication authorized by user
About this summary
Codex reviewed this assessment against a newer evidence edition. The original analyst, generation date and source draft remain recorded separately from the editorial revision.
Analyst provider
openai
Generation route
Codex CLI · codex-cli 0.162.1 · ChatGPT account
Requested model
gpt-6-astra
Returned model
Not supplied; identity is recorded from the request only.
Exact provider snapshot
Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
Reasoning effort
high
Prompt version
model-summary-reader-v7
Generation time
2026-10-14T01:36:37.360992Z
Review time
2026-10-22T05:56:50.662155+00:00
Evidence reviewer
Codex (agent)
Publication authorization
User · 2026-10-22T05:55:43.625712+00:00 · Go ahead and complete the remaining work. Spin up agents: luna, terra, sol, astra, as needed to get it done. Narrative summaries: these are the astra generated summaries? Go ahead and get those completed as well. Once all of this is done, you may push the completed result.
Handles demanding reasoning well with thinking enabled, including difficult math questions and deduction or planning puzzles. It also follows tightly specified wording and formatting successfully on nearly all these tests.
Useful for small-project edits and source-backed answers: all small-coding tests passed in either mode, and thinking-on answers correctly resisted unsupported challenges while accepting source updates throughout this small test set.
Longer jobs with tools remain uneven: a substantial share failed outright even with thinking on. Do not treat success on small edits as evidence it can finish a larger project unattended.
Research-paper answers match reference answers poorly with thinking on. Treat this as a warning about answer precision, not a factual-error rate or proof that every unmatched detail is false.
Small edits succeeded equally in either mode; thinking only modestly reduced median task time. Leaving it off is reasonable for that work. Prefer off for research-paper questions, where it gave better answer matching and lower average time.
Turn thinking on for difficult math, puzzles and strict formatting: scores improved across these tests. Average task time fell for difficult problems and puzzles, but strict-format tasks took substantially longer.
Evidence for this judgment
Published hard problems · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on
73.9/100 · Mean answer credit → 88.3/100 · Mean answer credit
With thinking on, it leads other tested large MoE models on difficult math/reasoning and puzzles. The difficult-problem score gap is substantial; the puzzle lead is smaller. Strict-instruction results tie the best tested peer.
Evidence for this judgment
Published hard problems Thinking on. Large · 20B and above · MoE (total parameters). Rank 1 of 6 in this recorded comparison.
Logic and number puzzles Thinking on. Large · 20B and above · MoE (total parameters). Rank 1 of 7 in this recorded comparison.
Following exact instructions Thinking on. Large · 20B and above · MoE (total parameters). Tied at rank 1 of 6 in this recorded comparison.
Other mode, this model only: thinking off · 73.9/100 · Mean answer credit.
How this comparison works
Average credit per task; partly correct results can earn partial credit. Family comparisons show the labeled Instruct and reasoning versions. Other peer comparisons use the same requested thinking setting, not necessarily each model’s best mode. Small differences on these short tests may not hold on other tasks. Peer membership varies by test coverage and compatible settings.
MoE models use only part of their parameters for each token. This group uses total size; active counts are not included in this saved comparison.
Comparison saved with the 2026-10-14 assessment. Task-specific results.
Logic and number puzzlesThinking on · Large · 20B and above · MoE (total parameters)
Solve newly generated puzzles using arithmetic, deduction and planning.
Mean puzzle credit · 0–100 points · higher is better 34 of 34 tasks scored for each model.
Gaps are relative to this model. Treat small gaps cautiously.
#1Qwen3.8 Flash-Next (IQ3_XXS)176.9B total parameters85.3/100
Other mode, this model only: thinking off · 70.6/100 · Mean puzzle credit.
How this comparison works
Average credit per task; partly correct results can earn partial credit. Family comparisons show the labeled Instruct and reasoning versions. Other peer comparisons use the same requested thinking setting, not necessarily each model’s best mode. Small differences on these short tests may not hold on other tasks. Peer membership varies by test coverage and compatible settings.
MoE models use only part of their parameters for each token. This group uses total size; active counts are not included in this saved comparison.
Comparison saved with the 2026-10-14 assessment. Task-specific results.
Following exact instructionsThinking on · Large · 20B and above · MoE (total parameters)
Keep to rules about wording, length, language and formatting.
Strict prompt compliance · 0–100% · higher is better 23 of 23 tasks scored for each model.
Gaps are relative to this model. Treat small gaps cautiously.
Other mode, this model only: thinking off · 73.9% · Strict prompt compliance.
How this comparison works
Share of tasks that passed the recorded checks. Family comparisons show the labeled Instruct and reasoning versions. Other peer comparisons use the same requested thinking setting, not necessarily each model’s best mode. Small differences on these short tests may not hold on other tasks. Peer membership varies by test coverage and compatible settings.
MoE models use only part of their parameters for each token. This group uses total size; active counts are not included in this saved comparison.
Comparison saved with the 2026-10-14 assessment. Task-specific results.
For longer practical tasks with thinking on, this configuration trails several tested large MoE peers. The declared Qwen baseline leads this comparison; its stronger showing on reasoning does not carry over to the larger tool tasks.
Evidence for this judgment
Larger practical tasks Thinking on. Large · 20B and above · MoE (total parameters). Rank 5 of 7 in this recorded comparison.
Other mode, this model only: thinking off · 63.6/100 · Mean task credit.
How this comparison works
Average credit per task; partly correct results can earn partial credit. Family comparisons show the labeled Instruct and reasoning versions. Other peer comparisons use the same requested thinking setting, not necessarily each model’s best mode. Small differences on these short tests may not hold on other tasks. Peer membership varies by test coverage and compatible settings.
MoE models use only part of their parameters for each token. This group uses total size; active counts are not included in this saved comparison.
Comparison saved with the 2026-10-14 assessment. Task-specific results.
Worth knowing
Some example content is redacted or available only through source links, limiting reader inspection.
Evidence for this judgment
Source limitation Some selected evidence has recorded publication redactions.
Both modes earned full credit on every matched question. These matched results leave no measured quality headroom; unmatched questions are not covered by this observation.
Thinking offMean matched task credit100.0%
Thinking onMean matched task credit100.0%
Thinking on took 28.0 seconds less per matched timed question, on average.
All matched quality and timing measurements
Matched measurement
Recorded result
Average credit, off → on
100.0% → 100.0%
Mean paired credit change
0.0 percentage points
Question outcomes
0 improved · 16 unchanged · 0 worse
Mean added task time
-28.0s
Mean task time, off → on
220.2s → 192.3s
Median task time, off → on
171.8s → 164.6s
Median of paired time changes
+0.2s
Total added task time
-447.8s
Ratio of summed times, on / off
0.9×
Quality and timing can cover different subsets. Median paired change is calculated per question; it is not the difference between the two medians. Task time includes tools and grading.
The user asks where the project's retry-limit setting is defined and what value it holds. This exercises locating a named setting in code and reporting both its location and value.
The user asks for the release date mentioned in a project notes document. This exercises reading a specified file and extracting a particular fact rather than guessing from outside knowledge.
The user asks to change the project's retry limit to a specified value. This exercises finding the relevant setting and making a focused code edit rather than merely describing the change.
The user asks to create a text file containing exactly one supplied line. This exercises basic file creation and precise instruction following, including avoiding extra text in the file.
The user asks what the most recent Git commit changed in the project. This exercises inspecting recorded changes and turning them into a clear explanation of what was modified.
The user asks how many Python files are in the application folder and which is largest. This exercises identifying relevant files, counting them, and comparing their sizes.
The user asks to add a function that converts byte counts into readable sizes and remove the related TODO comment. This exercises implementing a small utility and updating the surrounding code consistently.
The user asks to find every TODO comment in the Python code and append each to the project's task list on a separate line. This combines searching across files with collecting text into an existing document.
The user asks to investigate a failing test and fix the application code without changing the test. This exercises diagnosing a bug while respecting an explicit limit on what may be edited.
The user asks to rename a network function and update every place in the project that uses it. This exercises tracking references across files and making a coordinated change rather than editing only the definition.
The user asks to find a proxy configuration file somewhere under the project's parent folder and report its host and port. This exercises searching beyond the project folder and reading configuration values.
The user asks which error code appears in a long event log and on which line. This exercises finding a specific entry in a large file and reporting its precise location.
The user asks to append a supplied release-related task as the final line of an existing task list. This exercises preserving existing content while adding exact text in the requested position.
The user asks for the total time a network function spends sleeping when all attempts fail, worked out from the code. This exercises following retry logic and adding the delays along that failure path.
The user asks for a project readme listing every command-line option with its help text. This exercises discovering the program's available options and transferring that information into complete, source-grounded documentation.
The user asks to undo the latest Git commit's change by editing the file directly, without using Git to make changes. This exercises understanding a previous edit and reversing it under a method constraint.
basic-H8 · primary
Filters change this list, not the fixed scoring denominator. Search currently covers question IDs, titles and available task explanations. Focus a control to load prompt/outcome search where this edition provides it.
Suggested comparisons
These are starting points for inspection, not claims that one setup is better. Runtime and placement differences remain visible.
Thinking on versus off
Verified requested on/off conditions of the same configuration, matched on the recorded test protocol.
Requested thinking on · Complete compared coverage