Defines the minimum architecture plan, artifact identities, compatibility evidence, benchmark records, traces, rollback plan, and release status required by the separate implementation project.
Architecture guide: this topic defines a modular tiny-model planning contract. It does not claim that model artifacts exist, are compatible, or execute on this WordPress site.
Required plan packet
- Composer plan ID and JSON.
- Exact role-to-artifact mapping.
- Resolved dependency and compatibility graph.
- Memory, storage, context, latency, and quality targets.
- Teleodynamic candidate actions, score terms, resource transition, and no-op rule.
Implementation evidence
- Repository, commit, build UTC, artifact hashes, and SBOM.
- Browser, OS, hardware, enabled APIs, and fallback path.
- Cold/warm load, peak memory, throughput, tail latency, and failure traces.
- Task-quality datasets, acceptance criteria, abstention, and error analysis.
- License review, security review, rollback, and release status.
Promotion
MiRust may link the evidence but does not infer implementation status. Each GGUF claim remains tied to its exact revision and measurement record.
Scope
This starter page defines the questions, boundaries, evidence, and failure modes that should be recorded before a capability is presented as supported.
Engineering considerations
- Identify the source, version, target environment, and owner.
- Separate observed values from estimates and externally reported values.
- Record trade-offs, unsupported cases, and fallback behavior.
- Link performance statements to a compatible benchmark methodology.
Verification questions
- What exact artifact, revision, backend, and environment were reviewed?
- Which assumptions could change the result?
- Which data should be retained so another engineer can reproduce the conclusion?