Give the model a smaller question.

The candidate tasks are narrow: classify an intent, propose a catalog match, identify an exclusion, or recognize that clarification is needed. They are parts of interpreting a request, not authority to calculate a price or commit a quotation.

That boundary matters to an evaluation. Comparing a well-defined decision makes it possible to examine the specific errors a workflow must handle. A polished full response can conceal whether one important exclusion was missed.

The implemented evaluation interface supports comparisons, human review labels, usage diagnostics and export. These are tools for examining a candidate’s behavior. Their presence does not mean the candidate has completed qualification.

At the latest substantive project update, activation and live qualification were still pending. Jev remained inactive in the sales quotation workflow. This is a setup record, not a benchmark report.

The proposed next evaluation needs representative examples and reviewed expected decisions. Ambiguous inputs should be identified explicitly, rather than forcing a confident answer where a person would ask a question.

• Define the task and the output a reviewer or application can use.
• Label expected decisions and important exclusions before judging outputs.
• Keep comparison inputs and the surrounding workflow consistent.
• Record incorrect answers, unresolved ambiguity and reviewer corrections.
• Interpret timing and usage only alongside task quality and failure behavior.

There are no established comparative accuracy, latency or cost findings in this note. There is also no evidence here that Jev is qualified for production use in the quotation workflow.

The next decision depends on completed live evaluation and whether the candidate meets agreed requirements for the bounded task. If it does not, the workflow should keep the current boundary or use a different approach.