Compares sequential transformation, confidence escalation, parallel verification, and their latency, failure, and evidence trade-offs.
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.
Pipeline
Use when intermediate products have explicit schemas and each stage adds a necessary transformation. Track cumulative latency and error propagation.
Cascade
Use when a cheap stage can accept or abstain under a calibrated rule. Record escalation rates and false acceptance, not only average cost.
Committee
Use when independent error modes and an explicit aggregation rule justify parallel work. Measure diversity and disagreement; more models do not guarantee better answers.
Combination
A router may choose a small pipeline or committee. Keep every branch observable and bounded.
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?