Confirm the selected configuration as a whole

These examples and illustrative results are independently authored teaching materials, not measured model results.

Use case

Model selection, prompt revision and lower reasoning each had favorable stages, but teaching M2+P3+E-low never ran jointly. The prompt may depend on richer reasoning.

Mechanism

Freeze the full tuple, baseline, cases and pricing/usage basis. Predeclare quality tolerance, cost margin and mechanism criteria before fresh joint runs with appropriate repetitions under matched conditions. Verify parameters reach execution stages, retain item failures/usage and judge all gates. Fresh runs on selection cases are reconfirmation, not untouched testing.

Bad example

Add the best model savings, prompt gains and reasoning savings and call the sum measured joint performance.

Good example

Confirm M2/P3/E-low together under predeclared quality, cost and reduced-duplicate-lookup criteria. Inspect outputs, call counts and usage with configuration identity/failures. Do not add stage-best numbers or label repeated selection cases independent final testing.

Why the change matters

Components interact, so stage wins do not guarantee a joint win. Confirmation binds claimed configuration, quality and benefit to one observation set.

Observable expectation

Teaching lower cost with quality outside tolerance fails; stable quality without predicted lookup reduction leaves mechanism unexplained. Logs must show model, prompt and setting together. No actual prices, paid runs or performance measurements are provided here.

Limits

Criteria need justification and sample/repetition design is task-specific. Observed mechanisms do not prove production robustness; pricing/cache bases must match. Source fixed gates/counts are workflow choices, not budget authority.