Model review audits
Compare · Silent Carrier

Head to head

Same brief, same rubric, same scale. Every model on the task side by side, or just the ones you pick: dimension scores, how many of their claims held up, and which issues each review raised.

Models 2 of 16
All 16 models 

Every model here ran under the same conditions. How the runs were set up →

From the audits

The best evidence chain, and one number that undoes its plan

Sixteen models have now reviewed this repository. Fable builds the most thorough case for the microphone finding and the only object-level memory plan, and it reaches the per-frame SPI writes that only two other audits found. Its sibling run on the same client found all four decode-critical issues; this one finds two and a half, and prices the vocoder at a sixth of its cost.

From the Claude Fable 5.1 audit, 17 September 2026.

Weighted score

Out of 100, on the grade scale.

Where the points went

Earned and lost, by rubric slot

Each bar is a model’s 100-point grade split into the rubric’s weighted slots; filled is earned, empty is lost. The slots line up, so a gap in one bar against a full slot in another is exactly where the models part ways.

Claude Opus 5
92/ 100
Claude Fable 5.1
79/ 100
  • 1Accuracy & evidence30 pts
  • 2Coverage of decode problems25 pts
  • 3Root cause & prioritisation15 pts
  • 4Fix plan & acceptance gates15 pts
  • 5Originality & attribution10 pts
  • 6Clarity & calibration5 pts
Dimension profile

Scores on each rubric dimension

One panel per model: its score on each rubric dimension and the weighted total over the grade zones, in its own colour, with every other model on this task as a grey dot for scale. Hover a row for every model’s score and the auditor’s reasoning.

  • The panel’s model, joined down the dimensions
  • Every other model on this task

Claude Opus 592 A

AccuracyCoverageRoot causeFix planOriginalityClarityTotalFDCBA AccuracyCoverageRoot causeFix planOriginalityClarityTotalFDCBA

Claude Fable 5.179 C+

AccuracyCoverageRoot causeFix planOriginalityClarityTotalFDCBA AccuracyCoverageRoot causeFix planOriginalityClarityTotalFDCBA
Scores and weighted points
Dimension Weight Claude Opus 5Claude Fable 5.1GPT-6 AstraGPT-5.6 SolHY4 PreviewGPT-5.6 LunaUNIONALPHAGrok 4.6Muse Spark 1.3 ContributorDeepSeek V4.1 FlashGLM 5.3Gemini 3.8 FlashQwen3.8 MaxQwen3.8 FlashGLM 5.3 FlashDeepSeek V4 Pro Difference
Accuracy & evidence 30% 94 · 28.2 pts 85 · 25.5 pts 92 · 27.6 pts 91 · 27.3 pts 85 · 25.5 pts 82 · 24.6 pts 90 · 27.0 pts 74 · 22.2 pts 74 · 22.2 pts 73 · 21.9 pts 68 · 20.4 pts 65 · 19.5 pts 70 · 21.0 pts 62 · 18.6 pts 64 · 19.2 pts 61 · 18.3 pts +9
Coverage of decode problems 25% 86 · 21.5 pts 62 · 15.5 pts 84 · 21.0 pts 70 · 17.5 pts 56 · 14.0 pts 58 · 14.5 pts 65 · 16.3 pts 59 · 14.8 pts 54 · 13.5 pts 49 · 12.3 pts 52 · 13.0 pts 46 · 11.5 pts 39 · 9.8 pts 40 · 10.0 pts 34 · 8.5 pts 33 · 8.3 pts +24
Root cause & prioritisation 15% 96 · 14.4 pts 84 · 12.6 pts 88 · 13.2 pts 84 · 12.6 pts 80 · 12.0 pts 80 · 12.0 pts 60 · 9.0 pts 70 · 10.5 pts 72 · 10.8 pts 66 · 9.9 pts 74 · 11.1 pts 74 · 11.1 pts 71 · 10.7 pts 68 · 10.2 pts 62 · 9.3 pts 64 · 9.6 pts +12
Fix plan & acceptance gates 15% 93 · 14.0 pts 86 · 12.9 pts 92 · 13.8 pts 90 · 13.5 pts 84 · 12.6 pts 80 · 12.0 pts 70 · 10.5 pts 75 · 11.3 pts 71 · 10.7 pts 70 · 10.5 pts 68 · 10.2 pts 70 · 10.5 pts 71 · 10.7 pts 70 · 10.5 pts 62 · 9.3 pts 60 · 9.0 pts +7
Originality & attribution 10% 95 · 9.5 pts 84 · 8.4 pts 90 · 9.0 pts 84 · 8.4 pts 82 · 8.2 pts 72 · 7.2 pts 76 · 7.6 pts 72 · 7.2 pts 70 · 7.0 pts 74 · 7.4 pts 70 · 7.0 pts 70 · 7.0 pts 66 · 6.6 pts 64 · 6.4 pts 58 · 5.8 pts 62 · 6.2 pts +11
Clarity & calibration 5% 92 · 4.6 pts 88 · 4.4 pts 86 · 4.3 pts 86 · 4.3 pts 88 · 4.4 pts 84 · 4.2 pts 80 · 4.0 pts 78 · 3.9 pts 80 · 4.0 pts 74 · 3.7 pts 72 · 3.6 pts 84 · 4.2 pts 78 · 3.9 pts 70 · 3.5 pts 68 · 3.4 pts 48 · 2.4 pts +4
Weighted total 100% 92 · A79 · C+89 · B84 · B77 · C+75 · C+74 · C70 · C68 · C−66 · C−65 · C−64 · D63 · D59 · D56 · D54 · D +13
Claim check

Every claim, checked

One cell per claim in each audit’s claim table, checked at the lines it cites. Hover a cell for the claim and the auditor’s note. The reviews made different numbers of claims, so the bar under each grid gives the shares.

Claude Opus 5’s claim table · Claude Fable 5.1’s claim table

  • Holds
  • Qualifiedoverstated, miscounted or doubtful
  • Wrong
Claude Opus 521 claims checked

20 hold · 1 qualified · 0 wrong · 95% hold

Claude Fable 5.120 claims checked

15 hold · 4 qualified · 1 wrong · 75% hold

Issue coverage

What each review raised

Claude Opus 5 found 4 of the 4 decode-critical issues; Claude Fable 5.1 found 2 of the 4 decode-critical issues. Every tracked issue below, with the reviews that were already in the repository for reference.

Issue signatures

Each review as a trace across the tracked issues. Where traces part is where the reviews differ; hover a column for every review’s entry. Column numbers match the table below.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Project docs earlier repo review · in the repository Claude Opus 5 model · Sep 17 Claude Fable 5.1 model · Sep 17
  • raised
  • partly
  • absent
  • Decode-critical
Issues raised by each review of P25 voice decoding on the DM-1701
# Issue Project docsEarlier repo review · in the repository Claude Opus 5Model · Sep 17 Claude Fable 5.1Model · Sep 17
1 Capture export stages the wrong I2S halfwords absent absent absent
2 Capture parser certifies an incomplete stream absent absent absent
3 pcm_starve never increments absentdocumented as working absent absent
4 No static RAM margin partlymargins still to measure raisedwith the overlay buffers named raisedwith the objects to reclaim named
5 The I2S stream is most likely microphone audio Decode-critical partlyopen, leaning sceptical raisedproved from 0xE0=0x89 and sound.c raisedtraced to the buffer’s only consumer
6 HR-C6000 de-emphasis on the capture path Decode-critical absent raisedmeasured at 48.9% SER raisedwith the 300–3400 Hz bandpass
7 AT1846S FM filters, low-frequency bit, 25 kHz Decode-critical partly“require characterization” raisedall three, with the DMR fix raisedall three, FM against DMR
8 0x10=0x6E hybrid state; 0x36 dual role partlybring-up clock rules partly0x36 and 0xE0, not 0x10 raisedboth, as the per-frame writes
9 Manual: I2S frame clock “must be 8KHz” Decode-criticalmissed or ruled out absent raisedH2 absent
10 One-layer 4FSK test mode as a P25 tap missed or ruled out partlystock BER-test block only raisedRoute A, with an acceptance test absentruled out on DMR framing
11 ±10% health gate versus ±1% timing clamp absent absent absent
12 Fail-closed muting at LDU cadence absent partlyvia the MFID path partlylate entry mutes seven frames
13 Non-standard MFID mutes clear calls absent raisedM1, with the Motorola case absent
14 Test waveform shares the receiver’s RRC filter partly“synthetic RRC/AWGN” caveat raisedtested, called harmless partlyasks for a recorded waveform
15 MCU runs at 72 MHz raised raisedand measured against it raisedwith the PLL arithmetic
16 Vocoder needs 11–16× the 72 MHz CPU Decode-criticalmissed or ruled out partlydecode timing unmeasured raisedmeasured 6.5× on the demo build partly11,812 trig calls, priced at 60–120%
17 Direct discriminator tap (M17 mod) raised raisedRoute B, with the ADC channels checked raisedwith DC coupling and the ADC plan
18 Phase 2 architecture and scope partlynot implemented raisedincluding the descrambler seed raisedincluding the NET_STS_BCST seed
19 Two unverified SPI writes per decoded 20 ms frame absent absent raised0x36 and 0x10=0x6E
20 Capture sessions lack epochs absent absent absent
21 Ring and tick real-time budget partlydeadlines unproven raisedthe 21 ms ring against a 55–190 ms stall partlyper-window MAC cost only
22 Clock config 3 assumes 12,288 Hz; the codec formula gives 12,000 absent absent absent
23 Clock-config writes bypass the verified SPI writer partlySPI retry note partlycalls the heal machinery fragile absentcalls the machinery retirable
24 Stock squelch re-arms FM audio (0x10=0x80) during monitoring absentassumes it can’t re-arm absent absent
25 Stale clear-call state releases a new call’s first frames absent absent absent
26 No frequency tracking; ad-hoc timing loop gains partlya code comment calls the DC estimate biased raisedDC fit once per window, with the fix raisedwith the carrier-offset arithmetic
27 Unknown talkgroup opens audio (fail-open gating) absent absent absent

From the provenance table in the Claude Fable 5.1 audit (17 Sep 2026), the newest audit on this task. Shaded columns are reviews that were already in the repository.

Run facts

How each run went

Descriptive, not graded, and in grade order rather than ranked: one run per model. Run time is wall-clock, so it includes the provider’s speed, rate-limit waits and retries, and token counts vary with each model’s tokenizer. Every run followed Clean Room 1.0, which is what makes them comparable.

Run facts for each compared model, in grade order. Descriptive only: not graded or ranked.
Model Run time Agent steps Tool calls Output tokens Route Launch
Claude Opus 5 25 min 120 54 185K Claude Code CLI, subscription one-shot
Claude Fable 5.1 12 min 71 44 249K Claude Code CLI, subscription one-shot
Every run figure
Model Started (UTC) Output tokens Reasoning tokens Context tokens Messages Sessions Retry budget
Claude Opus 5 18 Sep 2026, 02:44 185,228 118,897 17,469,122 1
Claude Fable 5.1 18 Sep 2026, 03:10 249,363 167,839 8,687,277 1

Context tokens are input plus cache reads and writes: mostly the conversation re-sent at every step, so they grow with steps × context size. The retry budget is how many API retries the harness allowed.