Three consultations, one frozen packet
The operator requested Opus5.5 via account CLI plus Devstral and DeepSeek via DSHREM. All three received the same compact evidence packet. They recommended revising the category-biased stars. This is consultation from supplied evidence, not independent acceptance of the final release.
Advice we accepted
Separate capability, delivery, business fit and evidence. Show useful competitor options and TVIJO components side by side. Keep unknowns and scoped proof. Make domain examples and cost per accepted outcome inspectable. Preserve the first edition instead of raising scores cosmetically.
Advice we rejected or qualified
Devstral incorrectly inferred that TVIJO lacks skills, routing and checkpoints; project code/instructions contradict that, and competitor docs cannot prove our absence. Its claim that null violates unknown handling was rejected. DeepSeek returned malformed JSON and an incorrect count of criteria/products; its raw advice was retained but no structured acceptance was granted. Opus flagged an unused incident-report source; that source belongs to the separate research-swarm article, not the capability scores. Consensus is not a substitute for checking a claim.
Model and spend evidence
CLI modelUsage confirms claude-opus-5-5. DSHREM provider-response validation checks the returned model against the requested model: mistralai/devstral-2512 and deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731. Four metered provider calls across two DSHREM tasks totalUSD0.01481502; no uncertain balance remains. Initial oversized inputs were rejected locally before paid calls; the compact packet required one additional Opus subscription consultation. No paid retries or background loop.
- TVIJO AGENTSJUDJE · 2026-10-15
- TVIJO AGENTSORCH · 2026-10-15
- TVIJO operator guide · 2026-10-15
- TVIJO dated implementation evidence · 2026-10-15