Describes separate artifacts, heterogeneous architectures, explicit routing, storage growth, isolation benefits, and cross-model handoff costs.
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.
Characteristics
Each role is a self-contained model artifact. Specialists may use different tokenizers, architectures, formats, and backends, which improves isolation but increases conversion and handoff complexity.
Advantages
- Clear model-level ownership and replacement.
- Failure isolation and heterogeneous architecture choice.
- No adapter compatibility dependency.
Costs
- Storage and update size scale with specialist count.
- Multiple tokenization and context representations may lose information.
- Parallel committees multiply compute; pipelines accumulate latency.
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?