@bastani/atomic 0.9.19-alpha.1 → 0.9.19-alpha.11

package/docs/models/evals.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ description: "The external evals that inform Atomic model selection — Artifici
 Atomic's model-selection docs are keyed to two live external eval sources rather than a hand-maintained table of scores. This page lists each eval, what it measures, the measured numbers for the models in Atomic's catalog, and **when to reference it** for a given workflow role — so an agent authoring a workflow can pick a model for a task type from evidence rather than from an aggregate rank.
 
 <Warning>
-No single benchmark is the source of truth. Validate these inputs against Atomic's own workflow evals, whose task distribution is closer to the work you intend to run. Artificial Analysis was re-fetched on **2026-09-05**, including its September 4 Intelligence Index revision; the per-evaluation scores, leaderboard rows and Coding Agent Index rows below were read from the rendered charts on that date. The DeepSWE leaderboard rows below retain their **2026-09-03** compilation date and were read from the live page on **2026-09-05**. Every number is a rounded value as displayed by the source; unrounded values and confidence intervals live on the linked pages.
+No single benchmark is the source of truth. Validate these inputs against Atomic's own workflow evals. Artificial Analysis was retrieved on **2026-09-08**, after its **September 7 Intelligence Index v4.3** announcement. The AA tables and charts below use that read; source pages show no separate per-measurement publication date. DeepSWE retains its **2026-09-03** snapshot, read on **2026-09-05**, and was not revalidated in this refresh. Values preserve the displayed source precision; a rounded lead is not a significance claim.
 </Warning>
 
 ## The two sources at a glance
@@ -20,27 +20,25 @@ No single benchmark is the source of truth. Validate these inputs against Atomic
 
 ## Pick by task type
 
-Start here when a stage needs a model. Each row names the benchmark that measures the task type, the top measured picks and the cheapest pick that stays close, using the tables further down. "Measured" means the exact configuration named; a different effort level or agent is a different row on the source.
+Start here when a stage needs a model. Each row names a relevant benchmark and selected candidates, not a universal winner or a guarantee that the cheaper option stays close. "Measured" means the exact configuration named; a different effort level or agent is a different experiment.
 
-| Task type | Benchmark to read | Top measured picks | Budget pick that holds up |
+Practical workflow default: use `low` or `medium` for coding, and `high` or `xhigh` for code review, test design and failure analysis, where the configured model supports those levels. Run actual tests as tool calls, not model judgments. `max` is usually overkill and is not preferred in practice. These are starting recommendations, not conclusions that every benchmark proves; the rows below preserve the exact measured settings. See [role-based thinking effort](/models/model-selection#role-based-thinking-effort).
+
+| Task type | Benchmark to read | Selected measured candidates | Cost-conscious alternative |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- |
-| Implementing features and fixing bugs in a repo | DeepSWE `pass@1`, `$/task`, steps | gpt-6-astra [xhigh] 74% / $6.52 / 29 steps; gemini-3.8-flash [high] 74% / $2.36 / 166 steps; claude-opus-5 [max] 74% / $11.84 | gpt-5.6-luna [max] 67% / $0.61; glm-5.3-flash [max] 63% / $0.24 |
-| Terminal work, sysadmin, debugging in a shell | Terminal-Bench v2.1 | Fable 5.1 max 91%; Astra high and medium 90%; Sol xhigh 90%; Opus 5 max 89% | Terra max and Gemini 3.8 Flash high 88%; Gemini 3.7 Flash high 86%; GLM-5.3-Flash 84%; Luna max 81% |
-| Multi-file knowledge-work deliverables (spreadsheets, decks, memos) | AA-Briefcase, GDPval-AA v2 | Fable 5.1 max 58% / 63%; Opus 5 max 58% / 62%; Muse Spark 1.3 max 53% / 61% | GLM-5.3-Flash 48% / 59% at $0.18 per Index task |
-| Tool-calling against an API or knowledge base | 𝜏³-Banking | Muse Spark 1.3 max 52%; Grok 4.6 high 51%; GLM-5.3 max 50% | GLM-5.3-Flash 47%; Gemini 3.8 Flash high 45%. Luna max scores 31%: avoid it for tool-heavy loops |
-| Reasoning over long PDFs and reports | GDP.pdf All-pass | Astra max 33%; Astra xhigh 32%; Sol max 28%; Fable 5.1 max 26% | Astra low 30%; Luna max 23%. GLM-5.3 max 12% and Sonnet 5 max 13% are weak here |
-| Long-context extraction and synthesis | AA-LCR v1.1 | Kimi K3 max 89%; Fable 5.1 max 85%; Sol max, Luna max and Muse Spark 1.3 max 84% | Luna max 84% at $0.10 per Index task; nearly everything else sits at 79–83% |
-| Facts without citations, where a wrong answer is worse than "I don't know" | AA-Omniscience non-hallucination rate | GLM-5.3-Flash 72%; GLM-5.3 max 70%; Muse Spark 1.3 xhigh 69%; Grok 4.6 high 66% | GLM-5.3-Flash is already the cheapest row; Sonnet 5 max 61% is the Anthropic option. Sol max 8%, Luna max 7%, Terra max 12% and DeepSeek V4 5–8% answer wrong rather than abstain |
-| Facts where raw recall matters and the answer will be checked | AA-Omniscience accuracy | Fable 5.1 max 67%; Fable 5 65%; Astra max 63% | Gemini 3.8 Flash high and Gemini 3.7 Flash high 55% |
-| Scientific or numerical programming | SciCode | Fable 5.1 max 63%; Fable 5 61%; Muse Spark 1.3 xhigh 60%; Kimi K3 max and GLM-5.3 max 59% | Gemini 3.8 Flash high and Gemini 3.7 Flash high 57%; Luna max 54% |
-| Hard closed-form reasoning and research-level physics | Humanity's Last Exam, CritPt | HLE: Fable 5.1 max 59%; Opus 5 max and Astra max 55%. CritPt: Sol max and Astra max 32% | Astra medium 53% HLE / 29% CritPt |
-| Whole coding-agent product comparison (agent + model) | AA Coding Agent Index v1.4 | Claude Code + Fable 5.1 max 70; Claude Code + Opus 5 xhigh 68; Muse Code + Muse Spark 1.3 max 68 | Opencode + Gemini 3.8 Flash high 61 at $2.04 and 11.9 min; Codex + Luna max 57 at $0.29 and 8.0 min |
-
-Three cross-cutting reads from the numbers:
-
-- **Fable 5.1 (max, default fallback) is the broadest model** — first or tied-first on Terminal-Bench, AA-Briefcase, GDPval, SciCode, HLE and Omniscience accuracy — but it is the most expensive per AA task ($6.12) and its non-hallucination rate is 27%, below Opus 5 (39%) and Astra (49–55%). It is absent from the DeepSWE snapshot.
-- **GPT-6 Astra is the document and terminal specialist** — it leads GDP.pdf at every effort level, sits within a point of the Terminal-Bench leader, and its DeepSWE Best row solves 74% in 29 steps — but it trails the Anthropic rows by 5 points on AA-Briefcase and 8–9 on GDPval, where Muse Spark 1.3 max also leads it by 7, and it trails Meta, xAI and Z.AI by 9–11 points on 𝜏³-Banking.
-- **The OpenAI budget tier is accurate but overconfident.** Luna and Sol score 39–49% on HLE and 81–90% on Terminal-Bench, yet answer wrongly rather than abstain 91–93% of the time when they do not know. Pair them with verification tool nodes; do not use them for uncited research summaries.
+| Implementing features and fixing bugs | September 3 Datacurve DeepSWE | Astra xhigh, Gemini 3.8 Flash high and Opus 5 max display 74% | Luna max 67% / \$0.61; GLM-5.3-Flash max 63% / \$0.24 |
+| Terminal work and shell debugging | Terminal-Bench v4.0 | Astra xhigh 60%, max 59%; Fable 5.1 xhigh with fallback 55% | GLM-5.3-Flash 33% at $0.25 per Index task; task-specific quality is materially lower |
+| Knowledge-work deliverables | AA-Briefcase / GDPval-AA v2, normalized Elo, not pass rates | Fable 5.1 max with fallback 58% / 63%; Opus 5 max 57% / 62% | GLM-5.3-Flash 48% / 58% at $0.25 per Index task |
+| SaaS workflows through REST APIs | AutomationBench-AA | Astra max 68%; Astra high and xhigh, Grok 4.6 high 67% | GLM-5.3-Flash 60%; Luna max 50% |
+| Long PDFs and professional documents | GDP.pdf All-pass | Astra xhigh 32%; max and high 31% | Astra low 30%; Luna max 24% |
+| Long-context extraction and synthesis | AA-LCR v1.1 | Kimi K3 max 89%; Fable 5.1 max with fallback 85% | Luna max 84% at $0.18 per Index task |
+| Facts where a wrong answer is worse than a partial answer or abstention | AA-Omniscience non-hallucination | GLM-5.3-Flash 72%; GLM-5.3 max 70%; Muse Spark 1.3 xhigh 69% | GLM-5.3-Flash; verify claims regardless of benchmark rank |
+| Raw factual recall with external verification | AA-Omniscience accuracy | Fable 5.1 max with fallback 67%; Fable 5 with fallback 65% | Gemini 3.8 Flash high and Gemini 3.7 Flash high 55% |
+| Scientific programming | SciCode | Fable 5.1 max with fallback 63%; Fable 5 with fallback 61% | Gemini 3.8 Flash high and Gemini 3.7 Flash high 57% |
+| Hard reasoning and physics | Humanity's Last Exam / CritPt | Fable 5.1 max with fallback 59% HLE; Astra max and Sol max 32% CritPt | Astra medium 53% HLE / 29% CritPt |
+| Whole coding-agent products | Coding Agent Index v1.4 | Claude Code + Fable 5.1 max with fallback 70; Claude Code + Opus 5 xhigh and Muse Code + Muse Spark 1.3 max 68 | Opencode + Gemini 3.8 Flash high 61 / $2.04; Codex + Luna max 57 / $0.29 |
+
+The new terminal benchmark changes the practical cross-check. Astra is strongest among these displayed terminal and PDF configurations, while Fable 5.1 retains stronger normalized Elo on knowledge-work deliverables. Luna remains a low-cost long-context candidate but its 7% non-hallucination metric calls for external verification. AA task costs are not Datacurve or Atomic task costs. All abbreviated Fable labels in charts retain the table's default-fallback setting.
 
 ## DeepSWE — coding-agent performance
 
@@ -109,15 +107,15 @@ xychart-beta
 What the three charts say together:
 
 - **Accuracy is flat at the top.** Three models display 74% and a fourth 73%, all inside each other's confidence intervals. Choose among them on cost and steps, not score.
-- **Cost spans two orders of magnitude at the same score.** Luna [max] and Gemini 3.8 Flash [high] reach 67% and 74% for $0.61 and $2.36; Opus 5 [max] and Fable 5 [xhigh] reach 74% and 70% for $11.84 and $13.41. Sonnet 5 [max] is the outlier to avoid: 54% for $26.40 and 268 steps.
+- **The displayed 74% rows span about fivefold in cost.** Gemini 3.8 Flash [high] costs $2.36 and Opus 5 [max] $11.84. Luna [max] reaches 67% for $0.61. Sonnet 5 [max] costs $26.40 for 54% and 268 steps in this snapshot.
 - **Steps predict wall time and tool-call load.** Astra [xhigh] (29) and Sol [max] (61) finish in a third of the steps that Gemini 3.8 Flash [high] (166) or DeepSeek V4 Pro [max] (155) need. For a worker loop that pays per tool call or that a reviewer must audit, prefer the low-step row at the same accuracy.
-- **The cheap tier is honest about its ceiling.** GLM-5.3-Flash [max] 63% at $0.24 and DeepSeek V4 Flash [max] 53% at $0.46 are the only rows under $1 besides Luna; they are budget workers, not judgment gates.
+- **The cheap tier is honest about its ceiling.** GLM-5.3-Flash [max] 63% at \$0.24 and DeepSeek V4 Flash [max] 53% at \$0.46 are the only rows under \$1 besides Luna; they are budget workers, not judgment gates.
 
 ## Artificial Analysis: current measures
 
-### Intelligence Index v4.2
+### Intelligence Index v4.3
 
-The [September 4, 2026 announcement](https://artificialanalysis.ai/articles/artificial-analysis-intelligence-index-v4-2) and [current methodology](https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology/intelligence-benchmarking), retrieved 2026-09-05, identify **Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.2**. It adds AA-Briefcase and GDP.pdf, removes GPQA Diamond from this index, upgrades AA-LCR to v1.1, improves SciCode grading, and rebalances the weights. It also revises GDPval-AA v2 and AA-Briefcase Elo sampling and anchoring. Do not compare scores across index revisions as though only the models changed. The announcement describes v5 as upcoming, not current.
+The [September 7, 2026 announcement](https://artificialanalysis.ai/articles/artificial-analysis-intelligence-index-v4-3), [current index](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/artificial-analysis-intelligence-index) and [methodology](https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology/intelligence-benchmarking), retrieved 2026-09-08, identify **Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.3**. It replaces 𝜏³-Banking with AutomationBench-AA and Terminal-Bench v2.1 with v4.0. Category weights remain unchanged from v4.2; evaluations with private questions or answers now account for 45% rather than 40%. Do not compare scores across revisions as though only the models changed. The announcement still describes v5 as future work.
 
 The ten evaluations and their contributions are:
 
@@ -125,8 +123,8 @@ The ten evaluations and their contributions are:
 | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | Agents, 30% | AA-Briefcase | 15% | Multi-week knowledge-work projects and file deliverables |
 | Agents | GDPval-AA v2 | 10% | Economically realistic professional work |
-| Agents | 𝜏³-Banking | 5% | Tool use and customer interaction |
-| Coding, 20% | Terminal-Bench v2.1 | 10% | Terminal execution and debugging |
+| Agents | AutomationBench-AA | 5% | SaaS workflow automation with REST API tools; objective completion with zero credit on a guardrail violation |
+| Coding, 20% | Terminal-Bench v4.0 | 10% | Terminal execution and debugging |
 | Coding | SciCode | 10% | Scientific programming |
 | Scientific Reasoning, 20% | Humanity's Last Exam | 10% | Hard reasoning and knowledge |
 | Scientific Reasoning | CritPt | 10% | Physics reasoning |
@@ -134,189 +132,268 @@ The ten evaluations and their contributions are:
 | General | GDP.pdf | 10% | Professional document reasoning; headline All-pass requires every criterion to pass |
 | General | AA-LCR v1.1 | 5% | Long-context reasoning |
 
-This is primarily a text-based, English-language suite, not a universal measure of multimodal or multilingual quality. The [additional evaluations](https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology/intelligence-benchmarking#additional-evaluations), such as AutomationBench-AA, AA-AnalystAgent and ITBench-AA, can be better matches for SaaS workflows, spreadsheet analysis or incident diagnosis. Their presence on the site does not make them Intelligence Index components. GPQA Diamond also remains visible separately and in the Engineering capability index.
+AutomationBench-AA uses a private 657-task held-out split from dataset v1.0.6, one attempt per task and a 50-turn cap. Terminal-Bench v4.0 uses 66 tasks, mini-SWE-agent v2.4.6 and three repeats per task. These are different experiments from both the older Terminal-Bench v2.1 results and the Coding Agent Index below. The suite remains primarily text-based and English-language, not a universal measure of multimodal or multilingual quality. Additional evaluations such as AA-AnalystAgent and ITBench-AA can be better matches for spreadsheet analysis or incident diagnosis; their presence on the site does not make them index components. GPQA Diamond remains separate.
 
 ### Headline leaderboard rows for catalog models
 
-From the [LLM leaderboard](https://artificialanalysis.ai/leaderboards/models), retrieved 2026-09-05. Cost is AA's weighted **cost per Intelligence Index task** (confirmed against the model-page label), not a token price. Speed is output tokens per second on the default 10k-input workload. Latency is AA's time to first token, which for a streaming reasoning model can be the first reasoning token; end-to-end is seconds to a 500-token answer including thinking. `—` means AA does not report the value.
+From the [LLM leaderboard](https://artificialanalysis.ai/leaderboards/models), retrieved 2026-09-08. Cost is AA's weighted **cost per Intelligence Index task**, not a token price. Speed is output tokens per second on the default 10k-input workload. First-chunk latency can refer to a reasoning token; end-to-end includes thinking and a 500-token answer. `—` means the source does not report the value.
 
-| AA configuration | Intelligence Index | $/Index task | Output tok/s | TTFT (s) | End-to-end 500 tok (s) |
+| AA configuration | Intelligence Index | $/Index task | Output tok/s | First chunk (s) | End-to-end 500 tok (s) |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
-| Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback) | 57 | $6.12 | 69 | 266.5 | 273.8 |
-| GPT-6 Astra (max) | 55 | $2.57 | 87 | 463.7 | 469.5 |
-| GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) | 54 | $1.85 | 81 | 309.5 | 315.7 |
-| Claude Opus 5 (max) | 54 | $4.21 | 59 | 91.2 | 99.7 |
-| Claude Opus 5 (xhigh) | 53 | $3.36 | 57 | 33.8 | 42.6 |
-| GPT-6 Astra (high) | 53 | $1.41 | 87 | 141.6 | 147.3 |
-| Claude Fable 5 (with fallback) | 53 | $5.62 | 70 | 111.4 | 118.5 |
-| Muse Spark 1.3 (max) | 53 | $0.96 | 190 | 18.7 | 31.8 |
-| GPT-6 Astra (medium) | 52 | $1.16 | 79 | 24.6 | 30.9 |
-| Claude Opus 5 (high) | 52 | $2.44 | 56 | 23.0 | 31.9 |
-| Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) | 52 | $0.84 | 135 | 42.6 | 61.0 |
-| GPT-5.6 Sol (max) | 51 | $1.25 | 85 | 163.0 | 168.8 |
-| Grok 4.6 (high) | 51 | $1.25 | 65 | 52.4 | 60.1 |
-| Kimi K3 (max) | 50 | $1.58 | 40 | 4.7 | 67.9 |
-| GPT-5.6 Sol (xhigh) | 50 | $0.89 | 82 | 76.0 | 82.1 |
-| GLM-5.3 (max) | 49 | $1.26 | 80 | 2.1 | 33.3 |
-| GPT-6 Astra (low) | 49 | $0.63 | 86 | 6.6 | 12.5 |
-| GPT-5.6 Sol (high) | 48 | $0.61 | 72 | 18.8 | 25.8 |
-| Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) | 47 | $0.74 | — | — | — |
-| Qwen3.8 Max | 47 | $1.19 | 39 | 2.4 | 66.5 |
-| Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) | 47 | $0.55 | 267 | 15.3 | 24.6 |
-| GPT-5.6 Terra (max) | 47 | $0.81 | 111 | 244.8 | 249.3 |
-| GLM-5.3-Flash | 46 | $0.18 | 48 | 1.6 | 54.2 |
-| Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) | 45 | $0.55 | 310 | 10.6 | 12.2 |
-| Claude Sonnet 5 (max) | 45 | $3.31 | 74 | 178.7 | 185.4 |
-| GPT-5.6 Luna (max) | 43 | $0.10 | 135 | 173.2 | 177.0 |
-| DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) | 42 | $0.33 | 70 | 1.6 | 37.2 |
-| GPT-5.6 Luna (xhigh) | 42 | $0.06 | 125 | 71.1 | 75.1 |
-| DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (max) | 41 | $0.14 | 135 | 1.1 | 19.6 |
-| Gemini 3.6 Flash | 40 | $0.36 | 215 | 15.5 | 17.9 |
-
-Two things the latency columns make obvious that the index hides: `max` effort on OpenAI and Anthropic models costs three to eight minutes before the first answer token (Astra max 464 s, Fable 5.1 max 267 s, Terra max 245 s, Luna max 173 s), and the fast interactive tier is Opus 5 high or xhigh (23–34 s), Astra medium or low (7–25 s), Muse Spark 1.3 (19–43 s) and the Flash models (1–16 s). Pick effort for an interactive session from this column, not from the index.
+| Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback) | 53 | $7.63 | 69 | 276.82 | 284.07 |
+| Claude Fable 5.1 (xhigh with fallback) | 53 | $5.98 | 58 | 107.33 | 115.95 |
+| GPT-6 Astra (max) | 53 | $3.26 | 62 | 322.48 | 330.48 |
+| GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) | 53 | $2.31 | 58 | 131.86 | 140.46 |
+| Claude Fable 5.1 (high with fallback) | 51 | $3.91 | 56 | 23.85 | 32.77 |
+| GPT-6 Astra (high) | 51 | $1.72 | 59 | 44.97 | 53.48 |
+| Claude Opus 5 (max) | 51 | $5.86 | 52 | 63.60 | 73.24 |
+| Claude Fable 5 (with fallback) | 50 | $8.75 | 63 | 83.30 | 91.24 |
+| GPT-6 Astra (medium) | 50 | $1.54 | 56 | 5.21 | 14.19 |
+| Claude Opus 5 (xhigh) | 50 | $4.88 | 50 | 29.99 | 39.93 |
+| Claude Fable 5.1 (medium with fallback) | 49 | $2.98 | 54 | 7.99 | 17.17 |
+| Claude Opus 5 (high) | 48 | $3.61 | 52 | 17.45 | 27.04 |
+| Muse Spark 1.3 (max) | 48 | $1.60 | 232 | 26.75 | 37.50 |
+| GPT-5.6 Sol (max) | 47 | $1.99 | 74 | 127.52 | 134.27 |
+| Claude Fable 5.1 (low with fallback) | 47 | $2.37 | 52 | 6.35 | 15.92 |
+| GPT-6 Astra (low) | 46 | $0.82 | 55 | 2.55 | 11.72 |
+| GPT-6 Astra (Non-reasoning) | 45 | $1.71 | — | — | — |
+| Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) | 45 | $1.37 | 185 | 31.75 | 45.28 |
+| GLM-5.3 (max) | 45 | $2.01 | 71 | 2.44 | 37.51 |
+| Grok 4.6 (high) | 44 | $1.86 | 56 | 38.16 | 47.12 |
+| GPT-5.6 Sol (xhigh) | 44 | $1.18 | 69 | 45.41 | 52.63 |
+| Kimi K3 (max) | 44 | $2.00 | 42 | 3.26 | 63.43 |
+| GPT-5.6 Sol (high) | 42 | $0.81 | 68 | 10.61 | 17.96 |
+| GPT-5.6 Terra (max) | 42 | $1.40 | 116 | 139.61 | 143.94 |
+| GLM-5.3-Flash | 42 | $0.25 | 58 | 1.51 | 44.66 |
+| Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) | 41 | $1.24 | 286 | 17.36 | 19.11 |
+| Qwen3.8 Max | 40 | $2.67 | 41 | 2.44 | 63.94 |
+| Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) | 40 | $0.97 | 217 | 14.78 | 26.28 |
+| Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) | 39 | $0.93 | 319 | 9.50 | 11.07 |
+| Claude Sonnet 5 (max) | 38 | $5.09 | 80 | 183.11 | 189.40 |
+| GPT-5.6 Luna (max) | 38 | $0.18 | 121 | 136.55 | 140.67 |
+| DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) | 36 | $0.67 | 75 | 1.64 | 34.88 |
+| GPT-5.6 Luna (xhigh) | 35 | $0.09 | 109 | 58.50 | 63.10 |
+| DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (max) | 35 | $0.22 | 128 | 0.91 | 20.49 |
+| Gemini 3.6 Flash | 34 | $0.93 | 218 | 14.04 | 16.33 |
+
+Four configurations display 53 index points. This rounded tie does not establish identical underlying scores or statistically significant differences. Astra xhigh costs $2.31 per Index task versus $3.26 at max and has lower measured end-to-end latency. Fable 5.1 xhigh similarly costs less and responds sooner than max. Gemini 3.8 Flash now has reported API performance; its 286 tok/s is not a coding-agent completion rate.
+
+The live leaderboard also lists **Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B** at 40 index points and $2.16 per Index task, and **DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (max)** at 35 and $0.31. These are separate model identities, not replacements for Qwen3.8 Max or DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731. Their appearance on AA does not establish Atomic catalog availability. Check the exact model page and provider access before choosing either; no predecessor score is transferred here.
 
 ### Per-evaluation scores for catalog models
 
-Read from the "Intelligence Evaluations" charts on the AA model pages ([GPT-6 Astra](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gpt-6-astra), [GLM-5.3-Flash](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/glm-5-3-flash), [Gemini 3.7 Flash](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-7-flash), [Claude Sonnet 5](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5), [GPT-5.6 Terra](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gpt-5-6-terra)) on 2026-09-05. AA-Briefcase and GDPval-AA v2 are Elo scales; the model pages display them as `(Elo − 500) / 2000`, so 58% is Elo 1666 and 63% is Elo 1769. Everything else is a pass rate. Bold marks the column leader among these rows.
+Read on 2026-09-08 from the rendered "Intelligence Evaluations" charts on [Astra](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gpt-6-astra), [GLM-5.3-Flash](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/glm-5-3-flash), [Gemini 3.7 Flash](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-7-flash), [Sonnet 5](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5) and [Terra](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gpt-5-6-terra). AA-Briefcase and GDPval-AA v2 are normalized Elo scores displayed as `100 × clamp((Elo - 500) / 2000, 0, 1)`, **not pass percentages**. For index inclusion, the [methodology](https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology/intelligence-benchmarking) freezes each evaluation's Elo at model addition. Rounded displays cannot be inverted into exact Elo: 58% corresponds to approximately 1660, not an exact rating. AA-Omniscience non-hallucination is one minus the [hallucination rate](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/omniscience): `(partial answers + not attempted) / (incorrect + partial answers + not attempted)`, expressed as a percentage. It includes partial answers and not-attempted responses among non-correct responses, not just abstentions or a fraction of all answers.
+
+Sol's additional efforts were read from its [xhigh](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gpt-5-6-sol-xhigh) and [high](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gpt-5-6-sol-high) pages. Selection is explicit: the tables retain the previously documented configurations and add Fable 5.1's lower efforts and Astra's Non-reasoning row. A source label does not establish that Atomic exposes that configuration through every provider.
 
 **Agentic and coding evaluations**
 
-| AA configuration | AA-Briefcase | GDPval-AA v2 | 𝜏³-Banking | Terminal-Bench v2.1 | SciCode |
+| AA configuration | AA-Briefcase, normalized Elo | GDPval-AA v2, normalized Elo | AutomationBench-AA | Terminal-Bench v4.0 | SciCode |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
-| Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback) | **58%** | **63%** | 47% | **91%** | **63%** |
-| Claude Opus 5 (max) | **58%** | 62% | 42% | 89% | 56% |
-| Claude Opus 5 (xhigh) | 56% | 61% | 43% | 88% | 56% |
-| Claude Opus 5 (high) | 53% | 57% | 45% | 88% | 55% |
-| Claude Fable 5 (with fallback) | 52% | 57% | 38% | 85% | 61% |
-| GPT-6 Astra (max) | 53% | 54% | 41% | 88% | 56% |
-| GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) | 52% | 53% | 43% | 89% | 56% |
-| GPT-6 Astra (high) | 50% | 52% | 40% | 90% | 55% |
-| GPT-6 Astra (medium) | 48% | 50% | 35% | 90% | 54% |
-| GPT-6 Astra (low) | 38% | 46% | 32% | 88% | 54% |
-| GPT-5.6 Sol (max) | 49% | 56% | 44% | 88% | 57% |
-| GPT-5.6 Sol (xhigh) | 47% | 55% | 38% | 90% | 57% |
-| GPT-5.6 Sol (high) | 43% | 51% | 37% | 87% | 58% |
-| GPT-5.6 Terra (max) | 42% | 49% | 40% | 88% | 55% |
-| GPT-5.6 Luna (max) | 42% | 50% | 31% | 81% | 54% |
-| Muse Spark 1.3 (max) | 53% | 61% | **52%** | 86% | 58% |
-| Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) | 49% | 58% | 47% | 85% | 60% |
-| Grok 4.6 (high) | 52% | 57% | 51% | 88% | 56% |
-| Kimi K3 (max) | 50% | 54% | 46% | 85% | 59% |
-| GLM-5.3 (max) | 51% | 59% | 50% | 84% | 59% |
-| GLM-5.3-Flash | 48% | 59% | 47% | 84% | 52% |
-| Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) | 35% | 48% | 45% | 88% | 57% |
-| Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) | 31% | 47% | 33% | 86% | 57% |
-| Claude Sonnet 5 (max) | 43% | 50% | 37% | 81% | 54% |
-| DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) | 39% | 50% | 40% | 79% | 51% |
-| DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (max) | 38% | 49% | 39% | 79% | 50% |
+| Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback) | 58% | 63% | 59% | 52% | 63% |
+| Claude Fable 5.1 (xhigh with fallback) | 58% | 62% | 58% | 55% | 61% |
+| Claude Fable 5.1 (high with fallback) | 54% | 57% | 55% | 52% | 59% |
+| Claude Fable 5.1 (medium with fallback) | 52% | 54% | 55% | 45% | 56% |
+| Claude Fable 5.1 (low with fallback) | 49% | 50% | 52% | 40% | 57% |
+| Claude Opus 5 (max) | 57% | 62% | 57% | 49% | 56% |
+| Claude Opus 5 (xhigh) | 56% | 60% | 53% | 46% | 56% |
+| Claude Opus 5 (high) | 53% | 56% | 54% | 46% | 55% |
+| Claude Fable 5 (with fallback) | 51% | 57% | 54% | 42% | 61% |
+| GPT-6 Astra (max) | 53% | 54% | 68% | 59% | 56% |
+| GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) | 52% | 53% | 67% | 60% | 56% |
+| GPT-6 Astra (high) | 50% | 51% | 67% | 54% | 55% |
+| GPT-6 Astra (medium) | 48% | 50% | 65% | 49% | 54% |
+| GPT-6 Astra (low) | 38% | 46% | 59% | 42% | 54% |
+| GPT-6 Astra (Non-reasoning) | 49% | 52% | 62% | 51% | 53% |
+| GPT-5.6 Sol (max) | 49% | 56% | 60% | 40% | 57% |
+| GPT-5.6 Sol (xhigh) | 47% | 54% | 55% | 25% | 57% |
+| GPT-5.6 Sol (high) | 43% | 51% | 55% | 21% | 58% |
+| GPT-5.6 Terra (max) | 42% | 49% | 60% | 35% | 55% |
+| GPT-5.6 Luna (max) | 42% | 49% | 50% | 12% | 54% |
+| Muse Spark 1.3 (max) | 54% | 60% | 58% | 33% | 59% |
+| Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) | 49% | 58% | 57% | 17% | 60% |
+| Grok 4.6 (high) | 52% | 57% | 67% | 21% | 56% |
+| Kimi K3 (max) | 50% | 54% | 58% | 13% | 59% |
+| GLM-5.3 (max) | 51% | 59% | 62% | 42% | 59% |
+| GLM-5.3-Flash | 48% | 58% | 60% | 33% | 52% |
+| Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) | 35% | 48% | 60% | 20% | 57% |
+| Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) | 31% | 47% | 62% | 14% | 57% |
+| Claude Sonnet 5 (max) | 43% | 50% | 37% | 14% | 54% |
+| DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) | 38% | 50% | 57% | 14% | 51% |
+| DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (max) | 38% | 48% | 54% | 12% | 50% |
 
 **Reasoning, knowledge and document evaluations**
 
 | AA configuration | Humanity's Last Exam | CritPt | GDP.pdf All-pass | AA-Omniscience accuracy | AA-Omniscience non-hallucination | AA-LCR v1.1 |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
-| Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback) | **59%** | 30% | 26% | **67%** | 27% | 85% |
+| Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback) | 59% | 30% | 26% | 67% | 27% | 85% |
+| Claude Fable 5.1 (xhigh with fallback) | 59% | 31% | 26% | 66% | 29% | 83% |
+| Claude Fable 5.1 (high with fallback) | 56% | 30% | 27% | 65% | 31% | 84% |
+| Claude Fable 5.1 (medium with fallback) | 54% | 29% | 27% | 63% | 31% | 85% |
+| Claude Fable 5.1 (low with fallback) | 49% | 28% | 28% | 60% | 34% | 82% |
 | Claude Opus 5 (max) | 55% | 29% | 22% | 61% | 39% | 79% |
 | Claude Opus 5 (xhigh) | 54% | 28% | 21% | 60% | 40% | 80% |
 | Claude Opus 5 (high) | 53% | 28% | 20% | 59% | 39% | 79% |
 | Claude Fable 5 (with fallback) | 55% | 29% | 24% | 65% | 36% | 82% |
-| GPT-6 Astra (max) | 55% | **32%** | **33%** | 63% | 49% | 81% |
+| GPT-6 Astra (max) | 55% | 32% | 31% | 63% | 49% | 81% |
 | GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) | 55% | 31% | 32% | 62% | 52% | 80% |
 | GPT-6 Astra (high) | 53% | 29% | 31% | 61% | 55% | 80% |
 | GPT-6 Astra (medium) | 53% | 29% | 30% | 61% | 53% | 80% |
 | GPT-6 Astra (low) | 49% | 26% | 30% | 60% | 53% | 80% |
-| GPT-5.6 Sol (max) | 49% | **32%** | 28% | 59% | 8% | 84% |
+| GPT-6 Astra (Non-reasoning) | 37% | 20% | 27% | 56% | 35% | 71% |
+| GPT-5.6 Sol (max) | 49% | 32% | 27% | 59% | 8% | 84% |
 | GPT-5.6 Sol (xhigh) | 47% | 29% | 28% | 59% | 8% | 82% |
 | GPT-5.6 Sol (high) | 46% | 26% | 28% | 58% | 9% | 82% |
-| GPT-5.6 Terra (max) | 43% | 30% | 26% | 47% | 12% | 83% |
-| GPT-5.6 Luna (max) | 39% | 21% | 23% | 43% | 7% | 84% |
-| Muse Spark 1.3 (max) | 49% | 25% | 26% | 44% | 66% | 84% |
-| Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) | 47% | 26% | 23% | 42% | 69% | 83% |
-| Grok 4.6 (high) | 43% | 17% | 19% | 48% | 66% | 80% |
-| Kimi K3 (max) | 47% | 23% | 20% | 48% | 47% | **89%** |
-| GLM-5.3 (max) | 42% | 19% | 12% | 34% | 70% | 80% |
-| GLM-5.3-Flash | 40% | 15% | 13% | 28% | **72%** | 80% |
-| Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) | 48% | 18% | 19% | 55% | 45% | 81% |
+| GPT-5.6 Terra (max) | 43% | 30% | 24% | 47% | 12% | 83% |
+| GPT-5.6 Luna (max) | 39% | 21% | 24% | 43% | 7% | 84% |
+| Muse Spark 1.3 (max) | 49% | 25% | 27% | 44% | 67% | 83% |
+| Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) | 47% | 26% | 24% | 42% | 69% | 83% |
+| Grok 4.6 (high) | 43% | 17% | 17% | 48% | 66% | 80% |
+| Kimi K3 (max) | 47% | 23% | 22% | 48% | 47% | 89% |
+| GLM-5.3 (max) | 42% | 19% | 11% | 34% | 70% | 80% |
+| GLM-5.3-Flash | 40% | 15% | 15% | 28% | 72% | 80% |
+| Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) | 48% | 18% | 21% | 55% | 45% | 81% |
 | Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) | 48% | 14% | 24% | 55% | 35% | 82% |
 | Claude Sonnet 5 (max) | 41% | 17% | 13% | 40% | 61% | 82% |
-| DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) | 41% | 18% | 13% | 49% | 5% | 80% |
-| DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (max) | 39% | 17% | 14% | 40% | 8% | 80% |
+| DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) | 41% | 18% | 11% | 49% | 5% | 80% |
+| DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (max) | 39% | 17% | 11% | 40% | 8% | 80% |
+
+### Benchmark charts
+
+These charts use the dated tables above, not a new live retrieval. The first seven use the same selected configurations in the same order for comparison across benchmarks. Fable 5.1 retains its measured default fallback. Normalized Elo is not a pass rate. The following charts cover the remaining Intelligence Index components, including separate accuracy and non-hallucination views for AA-Omniscience.
+
+```mermaid
+xychart-beta
+    title "GDPval-AA v2, normalized Elo, September 8, 2026 read"
+    x-axis ["fable-5.1 max", "astra max", "opus-5 max", "sol max", "luna max", "glm-5.3-flash", "g3.8-flash high"]
+    y-axis "normalized Elo (%)" 0 --> 100
+    bar [63, 54, 62, 56, 49, 58, 48]
+```
+
+```mermaid
+xychart-beta
+    title "AutomationBench-AA, September 8, 2026 read"
+    x-axis ["fable-5.1 max", "astra max", "opus-5 max", "sol max", "luna max", "glm-5.3-flash", "g3.8-flash high"]
+    y-axis "score (%)" 0 --> 100
+    bar [59, 68, 57, 60, 50, 60, 60]
+```
+
+```mermaid
+xychart-beta
+    title "SciCode, September 8, 2026 read"
+    x-axis ["fable-5.1 max", "astra max", "opus-5 max", "sol max", "luna max", "glm-5.3-flash", "g3.8-flash high"]
+    y-axis "score (%)" 0 --> 100
+    bar [63, 56, 56, 57, 54, 52, 57]
+```
+
+```mermaid
+xychart-beta
+    title "Humanity's Last Exam, September 8, 2026 read"
+    x-axis ["fable-5.1 max", "astra max", "opus-5 max", "sol max", "luna max", "glm-5.3-flash", "g3.8-flash high"]
+    y-axis "score (%)" 0 --> 100
+    bar [59, 55, 55, 49, 39, 40, 48]
+```
+
+```mermaid
+xychart-beta
+    title "CritPt, September 8, 2026 read"
+    x-axis ["fable-5.1 max", "astra max", "opus-5 max", "sol max", "luna max", "glm-5.3-flash", "g3.8-flash high"]
+    y-axis "score (%)" 0 --> 100
+    bar [30, 32, 29, 32, 21, 15, 18]
+```
+
+```mermaid
+xychart-beta
+    title "AA-Omniscience accuracy, September 8, 2026 read"
+    x-axis ["fable-5.1 max", "astra max", "opus-5 max", "sol max", "luna max", "glm-5.3-flash", "g3.8-flash high"]
+    y-axis "accuracy (%)" 0 --> 100
+    bar [67, 63, 61, 59, 43, 28, 55]
+```
+
+```mermaid
+xychart-beta
+    title "AA-LCR v1.1, September 8, 2026 read"
+    x-axis ["fable-5.1 max", "astra max", "opus-5 max", "sol max", "luna max", "glm-5.3-flash", "g3.8-flash high"]
+    y-axis "score (%)" 0 --> 100
+    bar [85, 81, 79, 84, 84, 80, 81]
+```
 
 ```mermaid
 %%{init: {"xyChart": {"width": 1100, "height": 360}}}%%
 xychart-beta
-    title "Terminal-Bench v2.1 pass rate (%), top effort per model"
-    x-axis ["fable-5.1 max", "astra high", "sol xhigh", "opus-5 max", "terra max", "g3.8-flash high", "grok-4.6 high", "muse-1.3 max", "g3.7-flash high", "fable-5", "kimi-k3 max", "glm-5.3 max", "glm-5.3-flash", "luna max", "sonnet-5 max", "dsv4-pro max", "dsv4-flash max"]
-    y-axis "pass rate (%)" 60 --> 100
-    bar [91, 90, 90, 89, 88, 88, 88, 86, 86, 85, 85, 84, 84, 81, 81, 79, 79]
+    title "Terminal-Bench v4.0 pass rate (%), selected configurations"
+    x-axis ["astra xhigh", "astra max", "fable-5.1 xhigh", "fable-5.1 max", "opus-5 max", "fable-5", "glm-5.3 max", "sol max", "terra max", "muse-1.3 max", "glm-5.3-flash", "grok-4.6 high", "g3.8-flash high", "g3.7-flash high", "sonnet-5 max", "dsv4-pro max", "kimi-k3 max", "luna max", "dsv4-flash max"]
+    y-axis "pass rate (%)" 0 --> 70
+    bar [60, 59, 55, 52, 49, 42, 42, 40, 35, 33, 33, 21, 20, 14, 14, 14, 13, 12, 12]
 ```
 
 ```mermaid
 %%{init: {"xyChart": {"width": 1100, "height": 360}}}%%
 xychart-beta
-    title "AA-Briefcase, agentic knowledge work, (Elo - 500) / 2000 as %"
+    title "AA-Briefcase normalized Elo (%): 100 × clamp((Elo - 500) / 2000, 0, 1)"
     x-axis ["fable-5.1 max", "opus-5 max", "astra max", "muse-1.3 max", "grok-4.6 high", "fable-5", "glm-5.3 max", "kimi-k3 max", "sol max", "glm-5.3-flash", "sonnet-5 max", "terra max", "luna max", "dsv4-pro max", "dsv4-flash max", "g3.8-flash high", "g3.7-flash high"]
     y-axis "score (%)" 0 --> 70
-    bar [58, 58, 53, 53, 52, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 43, 42, 42, 39, 38, 35, 31]
+    bar [58, 57, 53, 54, 52, 51, 51, 50, 49, 48, 43, 42, 42, 38, 38, 35, 31]
 ```
 
 ```mermaid
 %%{init: {"xyChart": {"width": 1100, "height": 360}}}%%
 xychart-beta
     title "GDP.pdf All-pass (%), professional document reasoning"
-    x-axis ["astra max", "sol max", "fable-5.1 max", "muse-1.3 max", "terra max", "fable-5", "g3.7-flash high", "luna max", "opus-5 max", "kimi-k3 max", "g3.8-flash high", "grok-4.6 high", "dsv4-flash max", "sonnet-5 max", "dsv4-pro max", "glm-5.3-flash", "glm-5.3 max"]
+    x-axis ["astra xhigh", "astra max", "sol max", "muse-1.3 max", "fable-5.1 max", "terra max", "fable-5", "g3.7-flash high", "luna max", "opus-5 max", "kimi-k3 max", "g3.8-flash high", "grok-4.6 high", "glm-5.3-flash", "sonnet-5 max", "dsv4-pro max", "dsv4-flash max", "glm-5.3 max"]
     y-axis "all-pass rate (%)" 0 --> 40
-    bar [33, 28, 26, 26, 26, 24, 24, 23, 22, 20, 19, 19, 14, 13, 13, 13, 12]
+    bar [32, 31, 27, 27, 26, 24, 24, 24, 24, 22, 22, 21, 17, 15, 13, 11, 11, 11]
 ```
 
 ```mermaid
 %%{init: {"xyChart": {"width": 1100, "height": 360}}}%%
 xychart-beta
-    title "AA-Omniscience non-hallucination rate (%), higher means it abstains instead of guessing"
+    title "AA-Omniscience non-hallucination (%): partial or not attempted / non-correct"
     x-axis ["glm-5.3-flash", "glm-5.3 max", "muse-1.3 max", "grok-4.6 high", "sonnet-5 max", "astra max", "kimi-k3 max", "g3.8-flash high", "opus-5 max", "fable-5", "g3.7-flash high", "fable-5.1 max", "terra max", "sol max", "dsv4-flash max", "luna max", "dsv4-pro max"]
     y-axis "non-hallucination rate (%)" 0 --> 80
-    bar [72, 70, 66, 66, 61, 49, 47, 45, 39, 36, 35, 27, 12, 8, 8, 7, 5]
+    bar [72, 70, 67, 66, 61, 49, 47, 45, 39, 36, 35, 27, 12, 8, 8, 7, 5]
 ```
 
 How to read the per-evaluation tables:
 
-- **Effort buys different things on different evaluations.** Raising Astra from `medium` to `max` moves AA-Briefcase from 48% to 53% and GDP.pdf from 30% to 33%, but Terminal-Bench is flat at 88–90% across every level, including `low`. Sol `high` beats Sol `max` on SciCode. Do not assume the top effort is the best row for a coding stage; check the column.
-- **Knowledge-work agents and coding agents are different skills.** Gemini 3.8 Flash scores 88% on Terminal-Bench and 74% on DeepSWE, yet 35% on AA-Briefcase — the lowest of these rows. GLM-5.3-Flash is the opposite shape: 59% on GDPval, at the level of Opus 5 high, for $0.18 per Index task. Route by the column that matches the stage.
-- **Non-hallucination is a family trait, not an intelligence signal.** The Z.AI, Meta and xAI models abstain at 66–72%; Anthropic models sit at 27–61%; OpenAI's Sol, Luna and Terra and both DeepSeek rows sit at 5–12%. For an uncited research summary or a "does this API exist" question, a 7% model needs a verification tool node behind it regardless of its index score.
-- **Long context is not a differentiator at the top.** Every row except Kimi K3 (89%) sits at 79–85% on AA-LCR v1.1. Choose long-context stages on cost and on the accuracy or document columns instead.
+- **Effort is not monotonic.** Astra xhigh scores 60% on Terminal-Bench v4.0 and 32% on GDP.pdf, versus 59% and 31% at max. Fable 5.1 xhigh also exceeds max on Terminal-Bench, 55% versus 52%. These are displayed differences, not significance claims.
+- **Harness and task mix matter.** Gemini 3.8 Flash high retains 74% in the September 3 Datacurve snapshot, but scores 20% on AA's new Terminal-Bench v4.0 and 35% normalized Elo on AA-Briefcase. Gemini 3.7 Flash is lower on Briefcase at 31%. Neither result invalidates the other experiment.
+- **Verify uncertain facts.** Luna max has a 7% non-hallucination rate (partial answers or not attempted among non-correct responses). Its 84% AA-LCR score does not remove the need to check factual claims. Non-hallucination is not a general security or reliability guarantee.
+- **Do not infer a missing configuration.** These are selected rendered comparison rows, not every effort on AA. The headline table includes further configurations; omitted per-evaluation rows are not evidence that AA has no measurement.
 
 ### Additional evaluations for catalog models
 
-Not Intelligence Index components. AA measures only some models on each; a blank means AA had no result for that configuration on 2026-09-05, not a zero. GPQA Diamond and MMMU-Pro are included because they remain on the model pages; GPQA is saturated (89–96% across every row) and no longer discriminates.
+These are not Intelligence Index v4.3 components. AutomationBench-AA has moved into the component table above. A blank means no result was present for that exact configuration in the rendered comparison charts inspected on 2026-09-08, not zero or a claim that no result exists anywhere on AA. GPQA and MMMU-Pro remain separate evaluations.
 
-| AA configuration | AutomationBench-AA (SaaS workflows) | Harvey LAB-AA (legal) | EnterpriseOps-Gym-AA | AA-AnalystAgent (spreadsheets) | IFBench (instruction following) | ITBench-AA (K8s incidents) | GPQA Diamond | MMMU-Pro |
+| AA configuration | Harvey LAB-AA | EnterpriseOps-Gym-AA | AA-AnalystAgent | IFBench | APEX-Agents-AA | ITBench-AA | GPQA Diamond | MMMU-Pro |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
-| Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback) | | 93% | | | | | 94% | |
-| Claude Fable 5 (with fallback) | 49% | 94% | 51% | 49% | 63% | | 93% | |
-| Claude Opus 5 (max) | | 93% | 47% | 54% | | | 93% | 85% |
-| Claude Sonnet 5 (max) | 39% | 90% | 45% | 46% | | | 91% | 77% |
-| GPT-6 Astra (max) | | | | | | | 96% | 87% |
-| GPT-5.6 Sol (max) | 51% | 87% | 43% | 48% | 73% | 56% | 94% | 83% |
-| GPT-5.6 Terra (max) | 46% | 85% | 38% | | 71% | 51% | 93% | 81% |
-| GPT-5.6 Luna (max) | 42% | 88% | 41% | | | 40% | 91% | 79% |
-| Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) | | 95% | | | | | 94% | 82% |
-| Grok 4.6 (high) | | | 48% | 41% | | | 95% | |
-| Kimi K3 (max) | 53% | 95% | 45% | 39% | | 48% | 94% | 81% |
-| GLM-5.3 (max) | | | 36% | | | | 92% | |
-| GLM-5.3-Flash | | | 33% | | | | 91% | |
-| Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) | 51% | | | | | | 95% | 86% |
-| Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) | 63% | 91% | | 60% | | | 95% | 85% |
-| DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) | | | 50% | | | | 93% | |
+| Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback) | 93% | | 57% | | | | 94% | |
+| Claude Fable 5 (with fallback) | 94% | 51% | 49% | 63% | | | 93% | |
+| Claude Opus 5 (max) | 93% | 47% | 54% | | | | 93% | 85% |
+| Claude Sonnet 5 (max) | 90% | 45% | 46% | | | | 91% | 77% |
+| GPT-6 Astra (max) | | | 51% | | | | 96% | 87% |
+| GPT-5.6 Sol (max) | 87% | 43% | 48% | 73% | | 56% | 94% | 83% |
+| GPT-5.6 Terra (max) | 85% | 38% | | 71% | 39% | 51% | 93% | 81% |
+| GPT-5.6 Luna (max) | 88% | 41% | | | 36% | 40% | 91% | 79% |
+| Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) | 95% | | | | | | 94% | 82% |
+| Grok 4.6 (high) | | 48% | 41% | | | | 95% | |
+| Kimi K3 (max) | 95% | 45% | 39% | | 41% | 48% | 94% | 81% |
+| GLM-5.3 (max) | | 36% | | | | | 92% | |
+| GLM-5.3-Flash | | 33% | | | | | 91% | |
+| Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) | | | | | | | 95% | 86% |
+| Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) | 91% | | 60% | | | | 95% | 85% |
+| DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) | | 50% | | | | | 93% | |
 | DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (max) | | | | | | | 91% | |
 
-Two rows worth knowing: Gemini 3.7 Flash leads AutomationBench-AA (63%) and AA-AnalystAgent (60%) among measured rows, so it is the SaaS-automation and spreadsheet candidate despite its weak AA-Briefcase; and Sol max leads IFBench (73%) and ITBench-AA (56%), which makes it the strict-format and incident-diagnosis candidate in the OpenAI family.
+Gemini 3.7 Flash high leads the displayed AA-AnalystAgent rows at 60%; Fable 5.1 max now has 57% and Astra max 51%. Sol max leads the displayed IFBench and ITBench rows at 73% and 56%. [APEX-Agents-AA](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/apex-agents-aa) adds a separate long-horizon agentic-work comparison; among the three configurations listed here Kimi K3 max scores 41%, Terra max 39% and Luna max 36%. These are candidates for task-specific testing, not universal role winners.
 
 ### Coding Agent Index v1.4 is a different comparison
 
-The [Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index](https://artificialanalysis.ai/agents/coding-agents) evaluates named **agent + model + settings** combinations, not interchangeable base-model rows. Its [methodology](https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology/coding-agents-benchmarking), retrieved 2026-09-05, identifies **v1.4**, current since August 2026. It equally weights DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench v2.1 and SWE-Atlas-QnA. Those components contain 113, 89 and 124 tasks respectively, each with three attempts per task. Per-evaluation pass@1 averages attempts within a task, then tasks within an evaluation. Reward-hacked Terminal-Bench attempts receive zero.
+The [Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index](https://artificialanalysis.ai/agents/coding-agents) evaluates named **agent + model + settings** combinations, not interchangeable base-model rows. Its [methodology](https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology/coding-agents-benchmarking), retrieved 2026-09-08, still identifies **v1.4**, current since August 2026. It equally weights DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench v2.1 and SWE-Atlas-QnA, not the Intelligence Index's new Terminal-Bench v4.0. The components contain 113, 89 and 124 tasks respectively, each with three attempts per task. Per-evaluation pass@1 averages attempts within each task, then tasks within an evaluation. Reward-hacked Terminal-Bench attempts receive zero.
 
 Cost and execution time instead pool task attempts across the suite. Cost uses pay-per-token API pricing, including supported cache charges, not subscription-plan prices. Execution time is measured wall time; missing telemetry is excluded from the relevant average, not treated as zero. Agent defaults apply unless the row specifies other settings.
 
-The fourteen rows on the rendered leaderboard, read 2026-09-05:
+The fourteen rows on the rendered leaderboard, read 2026-09-08. Component values are pass@1 percentages; the composite is index points.
 
 | Agent + model (settings) | Coding Agent Index | DeepSWE | Terminal-Bench v2.1 | SWE-Atlas-QnA | $/task | Wall time/task |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
@@ -346,21 +423,21 @@ xychart-beta
 
 Three reads from the agent table:
 
-- **SWE-Atlas-QnA is where the Anthropic rows separate.** Fable 5.1 and Opus 5 score 55–56% on repository-understanding questions against 33–52% for every other row; on DeepSWE and Terminal-Bench they are inside the pack. If a stage is mostly reading and explaining code rather than patching it, that column is the one to weight.
+- **SWE-Atlas-QnA favors the two displayed Anthropic-model rows.** Fable 5.1 and Opus 5 score 55–56% on repository-understanding questions against 29–52% for the other rows. These are named agent experiments, not proof that the base models will retain the same ordering in Atomic.
 - **Muse Spark 1.3 is the value row.** Muse Code + Muse Spark 1.3 (max) ties Opus 5 on the index for $1.58 per task, and leads DeepSWE inside AA's harness at 68. Its `xhigh` row halves wall time to 12.8 minutes for four index points.
 - **Cheap and fast is a real trade.** Codex + Luna (max) at 57 costs $0.29 and finishes in 8.0 minutes; it sits three points behind Fable 5.1 on DeepSWE and loses its gap on SWE-Atlas-QnA and Terminal-Bench instead. Codex + DeepSeek V4 Flash at 50 costs $0.06 but trails on all three components.
 
 AA's DeepSWE component uses the DeepSWE dataset with the named agent. It is not the same experiment as Datacurve's `mini-swe-agent` leaderboard, and the two disagree: inside AA's harness Muse Code + Muse Spark 1.3 (68) edges Codex + Astra (67), while Datacurve's Best view has Astra [xhigh] at 74% and has not published Muse Spark 1.3 at all (its Muse Spark 1.2 [xhigh] row sits at 55%). Neither its component score nor its composite belongs in the [DeepSWE frontier](/models/pareto-efficiency).
 
-Earlier versions of these docs referred to a base-model **Coding Index** and **Agentic Index**. Neither is listed in the current [capability directory](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/capabilities) or [capability methodology](https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology/capability-indices) inspected on 2026-09-05. We therefore do not assign them a current version or silently rename either to Coding Agent Index. Use the named coding and agentic evaluations above instead.
+Earlier versions of these docs referred to a base-model **Coding Index** and **Agentic Index**. Neither is listed in the [capability directory](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/capabilities) or [capability methodology](https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology/capability-indices) inspected on 2026-09-08. We do not silently rename either to Coding Agent Index. Use the named coding and agentic evaluations above instead.
 
 ### Professional capability indices
 
-The current directory lists Finance & Accounting, Strategy & Ops, Legal, Healthcare & Medical, Engineering, and Economics. The [capability methodology](https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology/capability-indices) specifies domain-dependent components and weights, rather than a single shared formula. It displays no version identifier. Use the matching domain index when its task mix fits your work.
+The directory inspected on 2026-09-08 lists Finance & Accounting, Strategy & Ops, Legal, Healthcare & Medical, Engineering, and Economics. The [capability methodology](https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology/capability-indices) specifies domain-dependent components and weights and displays no version identifier. Some domains still use 𝜏³-Banking; Engineering still lists Terminal-Bench v2.1. Do not apply the Intelligence Index v4.3 substitutions to these separate indices.
 
 ### Price, task cost and latency
 
-Read the [definitions](https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology#definitions) and [API performance methodology](https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology/performance-benchmarking), retrieved 2026-09-05, before comparing efficiency charts:
+Read the [definitions](https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology#definitions) and [API performance methodology](https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology/performance-benchmarking), retrieved 2026-09-08, before comparing efficiency charts:
 
 - Token prices are USD per million native tokens. AA's blended price assumes cache-hit, input and output tokens in a **7:2:1** ratio. That synthetic mix is not your workflow's bill.
 - Intelligence Index cost per task uses actual token consumption, provider prices and typical measured cache hit rates, weighted by the index's evaluation weights. It is neither the total cost of running the suite nor DeepSWE dollars per task. The leaderboard's `$` column above is this value.
@@ -370,13 +447,13 @@ Read the [definitions](https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology#definitions) an
 
 ## Role to benchmark map
 
-| Role | Primary evidence | Cross-check | Measured leaders on 2026-09-05 |
+| Role | Primary evidence | Cross-check | Selected AA measurements on 2026-09-08 |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- |
-| Debugger / coding worker | Datacurve DeepSWE pass@1, cost and steps | AA Terminal-Bench v2.1; Coding Agent Index with the actual agent identified | DeepSWE: astra [xhigh], gemini-3.8-flash [high], opus-5 [max] at 74%; Terminal-Bench: Fable 5.1 max 91%, Astra high 90% |
-| Reviewer / judgment gate | Task-specific Atomic evals and DeepSWE for code judgments | AA-Briefcase and knowledge reliability for broader judgments; SWE-Atlas-QnA for code-reading judgments | AA-Briefcase: Fable 5.1 max and Opus 5 max 58%; SWE-Atlas-QnA: Claude Code + Fable 5.1 56% |
-| Planner / orchestrator | AA-Briefcase, GDPval-AA v2 | 𝜏³-Banking for tool interaction | GDPval: Fable 5.1 max 63%, Opus 5 max 62%, Muse Spark 1.3 max 61%; 𝜏³: Muse Spark 1.3 max 52%, Grok 4.6 high 51% |
-| Research | AA-LCR v1.1, GDP.pdf | AA-Omniscience accuracy and non-hallucination | GDP.pdf: Astra max 33%; LCR: Kimi K3 max 89%; accuracy: Fable 5.1 max 67%; non-hallucination: GLM-5.3-Flash 72% |
-| Domain-specific work | Matching AA capability index | Its component evaluations | Legal: Muse Spark 1.3 xhigh and Kimi K3 max 95% on Harvey LAB-AA; SaaS automation: Gemini 3.7 Flash high 63%; incidents: Sol max 56% on ITBench-AA |
+| Debugger / coding worker | September 3 Datacurve DeepSWE pass@1, cost and steps | Terminal-Bench v4.0 | Astra xhigh 60%; Fable 5.1 xhigh with fallback 55% |
+| Reviewer / judgment gate | Task-specific Atomic evals | Named-agent SWE-Atlas-QnA and knowledge reliability | Claude Code + Fable 5.1 max with fallback 56%; not a security-review guarantee |
+| Planner / orchestrator | AA-Briefcase, GDPval-AA v2 | AutomationBench-AA for SaaS tools | Fable 5.1 max with fallback 58% / 63% normalized Elo; Astra max 68% AutomationBench |
+| Research | AA-LCR v1.1, GDP.pdf | AA-Omniscience | Astra xhigh 32% GDP.pdf; Kimi K3 max 89% AA-LCR; GLM-5.3-Flash 72% non-hallucination |
+| Domain-specific work | Matching capability index and task evals | Additional evaluations | Gemini 3.7 Flash high 60% AA-AnalystAgent; Sol max 56% ITBench-AA |
 
 See [Model Selection](/models/model-selection) for a small dated shortlist and production effort guidance. Benchmark settings are measurement configurations, not instructions to raise every role's effort.