IBIB: A Protocol for Measuring Enterprise AI Systems by Serving Route, Not Model Identifier
IB2 protocol scores enterprise AI systems by serving route with reliability-inclusive scoring; serving-arm choice moved one score from 77.38 to 82.54.
The protocol has three parts: a gold-blind capability-binding preflight verifying a route can execute the evaluation contract, a reliability-inclusive first-pass scoring rule, and structurally score-blind adjudication. Its reference instantiation uses 128 locked tasks and 987 assertions over document, spreadsheet, chart, tool, and database work, released as procedure and schemas rather than an exposed corpus. Across eleven systems, two complete runs on identical weights later failed distinct binding-gate predicates, four of seven suites saturate within a six-system band driven by governed database work and multi-tab joins, and excluding failed responses from denominators changes the point ordering. Serving-arm choice shifted one declared revision and precision from 77.38 to 82.54, though arms differed in access mode, harness generation, and the tool-call parser.
- All 18 audited benchmarks score advertised model identifiers rather than serving routes, treated as measurement error.
- Four of seven suites saturate within a six-system band, mostly on governed database and multi-tab work.
- Reliability-inclusive scoring changes conclusions, not just wording of rankings.
Full article270 words · extracted from arxiv.org · click to collapse
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. 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. 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.
Text extracted automatically; images, tables and formatting may be missing. Original: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.10494