Convention. Capability claims, procedures, evaluations, and resource bounds [ftip-0003]
AGENTDRAFTED
A capability claim in this note names four objects:
- a starting model artifact \(M_0\), with its accompanying information,
libraries, tools and initially available controllers disclosed;
- a procedure \(A\) that may query models, interact, retain experience
and train successor artifacts, with its feedback sources specified;
- an evaluation rule \(E\), including the task law, retained artifact
and deployment procedure being evaluated; and
- a resource bound \(b\).
The claim concerns the observable outcome of running \(A\) from \(M_0\) and
judging the result with \(E\) while respecting \(b\). It is not a claim about an
unbounded or unspecified model.
For a comparison across generations, use the
complete lineage specification to make these initial resources
and permitted operations explicit. Newly generated controllers and learned
artifacts belong to the charged process. An externally supplied contribution
has a declared producer and acquisition procedure; it is not silently added
to the starting model's resources.
The bound \(b\) may contain several coordinates, such as training tokens,
rollouts, accelerator work, wall-clock time, tool calls, or evaluation-time
samples. Distinguish the complete development budget from the deployment
budget used to compare frozen artifacts on fresh problems. Coordinates with
different units remain separate unless a declared
cost model converts them to a common unit.
This convention follows the experimental separation between training and
inference procedures used in [shao2024deepseekmath, secs. 3--4] and
[guo2025deepseek, secs. 2--3]. Those studies motivate the objects in a
claim; they do not imply that every capability is summarized by one benchmark
or one scalar budget.