which AI should you hand your real work to?

method17 oct 2026· v4

v4 plan: the writing tests use the real templates

From pack v4, the X article, Threads post and Threads thread follow the same templates Lennox uses for real: his X article skill, his listicle plug template and Threadify's long-form thread template. The YouTube script follows the shape of his Threadify proof loops videos. A benchmark should test the real job, not a task made up in a vacuum. The templates stay private. v3 scores do not change, and v4 scores can't be compared with v3. No v4 run has started.

new result14 oct 2026· v3

v3 result: Gemini 4 Argon 45.38, Muse Wonder Full 39.91

Gemini 4 Argon with the BuilderBench API harness scored 45.38 and Muse Wonder Full with Muse Code scored 39.91 on pack 3.0.0. Argon leads this assessment by 5.47 points. Owner-finalized partial personal review of one run per setup. Not equal conditions: Extra High was requested but Argon ran on High, the two used different tools, a storage problem interrupted the build window, and the operator logs leaked identity clues. 3 of 4 native recordings have gaps. Argon's cost is a partial estimate; Muse Wonder Full's is unknown. Not a ranking.

correction11 oct 2026· v3

correction after release: result graphic labels

The Luna and Haiku result graphic printed "candidate A" and "candidate B" under the model names, and a stray dash after "extra high". Both were taken out. Every score, price and caveat is unchanged.

new result8 oct 2026· v3

v3 result: GPT-6 Luna 44.58, Haiku 5.5 39.18

GPT-6 Luna with Codex scored 44.58 and Haiku 5.5 with Claude scored 39.18 on pack 3.0.0. Luna leads this assessment by 5.40 points. Owner-finalized partial personal assessment of one run per setup; the original execution, native recordings and continuous review are incomplete, and the limits are on the page. Not a ranking.

method8 oct 2026· v3

how runs work now: named by default, separate native ratings, API prices on every result

new runs keep ten task families, 70% quality, 20% autonomy and 10% proactivity, a four-hour build window and separately timed native sessions. named review is the default. a blind comparison is requested when two or more models run together. task 9 is conductor-scored with evidence. other owner ratings stay blank until supplied. future lead magnets get one owner rating for look and feel. the browser and computer prompts are now open demonstrations, and the computer one excludes browsers. each rating has its own help text. every result shows each model's official API rates, apart from the run estimate and the actual bill. older runs keep their frozen task versions and rubrics.

correction7 oct 2026· v3

Sonnet 5.5 v3 graphic date

The Sonnet 5.5 v3 result graphic shows 30 September 2026. That is the day the partial review was finalized. The run itself was on 29 September 2026, as the result page says. Scores, costs and limits are unchanged.

new result6 oct 2026· v3

GPT-6.1 Sol v3 result is public

GPT-6.1 Sol with Codex scored 41.75 on pack 3.0.0. Owner-finalized partial personal assessment; independent checks and native recordings did not finish, and the limits are on the page.

new result6 oct 2026· v2

GPT-6 Astra v2 result is public

GPT-6 Astra with Codex scored 53.75 on pack 2.0.0. Personal assessment; the owner accepted incomplete browser and computer recordings on the record, and the limits are on the page.

new result6 oct 2026· v3

Sonnet 5.5 v3 result is public

Sonnet 5.5 with Claude scored 48.98 on pack 3.0.0. Owner-finalized partial personal assessment; execution was interrupted and the limits are on the page.

method30 sep 2026· v4

future versions: 90% quality, 5% autonomy, 5% proactivity

quality will carry 90% of the overall score in future benchmark versions, with autonomy and proactivity at 5% each. this starts with the next major pack, v4. the current v3 run and all earlier results keep their original 70/20/10 weights. no v4 scored run has started. scores from different packs remain separate historical references.

method30 sep 2026· v3

clearer review, saved answers and visible cost coverage

single-model reviews show the model name. blind review is reserved for comparisons of two or more models. the conductor reviews task 9 and records its evidence and scores. founder answers and generated documents are archived for later review. future review screens render Markdown tables and reject predominantly black recordings. the private cost view shows API-equivalent estimates with the number of saved records priced. estimates are not bills, and missing usage stays missing. the current v3 review is still provisional; there is no cleared public v3 result.

method28 sep 2026· v3

v3 method: ten task families on real Threadify work

Threadify work, ten task families, a working lead-magnet app, and repeatable owner-supplied computer tasks. Calibration is pending, so there is no v3 score yet.

new cohort25 sep 2026· v2

v2: real episode footage and thumbnail packaging

The suite added real episode footage and thumbnail packaging. Its results are not in the public archive.

new result25 sep 2026· v1

v1 pilot result: Opus 5.5 68.26, GPT-6 Sol 45.55

Opus 5.5 with Claude scored 68.26 and GPT-6 Sol with Codex scored 45.55. One owner-scored run per setup, so it is not a universal model ranking.

correction24 sep 2026· v1

correction before release: stale missing-file flags

After the scores were locked, live-chat deliverables were still flagged as missing. The frozen files and their hashes were checked again, and they were there. My ratings of the work did not change. Only the missing-file flags did.

new cohort24 sep 2026· v1

v1: the first eight-task pilot

The first eight-task pilot: two AI setups, the same frozen jobs, the same four-hour clock, scored blind.