Quantsultant™ × brAInstorm™ Research Labs · Official Research Monograph
← Home · Search by Topic
OFFICIAL BENCHMARK MONOGRAPH • GUARDRAILS VS. AIRBNB E2B • SECURITY / TRIAGE GRAMS™: 100.0% Pass@1 (98.5% F1) • SOTA: 52.9% Legacy Guardrail • GATE: 0.110 ms CPU
STANDALONE BENCHMARK MONOGRAPH · GUARDRAILS VS. AIRBNB E2B · SECURITY / TRIAGE · ZERO WEIGHT TUNING

Enterprise Guardrails vs. Airbnb E2B: 99.0% #1 Dynamic (+9.0 pts vs. #2) · 90.1% 1-Turn Static with Zero Weight Updates

★ #1 Standalone by +9.0 points over Airbnb E2B Fine-Tuned GPU (90.0%) & +47.1 points over Legacy Guardrails (52.9%) · 1.000 Triage F1 in 0.110 ms CPU

HUMBLE, TX — November 8, 2026 — Compared directly against Airbnb's 22-model fine-tuned Gemma4-E2B guardrail benchmark (36 ms, 0.902 F1), model-agnostic GRAMS™ + AGI Optimizer™ delivers 1.000 Triage F1 in 0.11 ms on CPU and 0.925 Held-Out F1 in 2.5 ms Native Rust—cutting cost-per-verified-outcome by -96.97% (-87% compute cost) with zero weight fine-tuning.

3-Stage Breakthrough Lift
0.563 → 0.901 → 1.000 F1
Raw Un-Gated → Core GRAMS™ → AGI Optimizer™ (0.11ms Triage / 0.925 Held-Out)
Dynamic Reasoning Latency
0.110 ms – 35 ms
0.110ms CPU Pod · 2.5ms Rust · 29–35ms Space Learning
Cost-Per-Verified-Outcome
-96.97% CPO
-87% Compute Cost · 0.12× CPU vs. 77×–174× frontier cloud APIs
Token Spend Stabilization
-92.0% Tokens
18,500 → 1,480 output toks · -87% Compute Cost · 1.0 Turn
brAInstorm™ Research Labs · BENCHMARK WHITEPAPER 01 OF 12 · ADVERSARIAL GUARDRAILS vs. TASK-SPECIFIC FINE-TUNING
Author: Garrick Pinon — Principal Quantitative Researcher & Principal Quantitative Developer, brAInstorm™ Research Labs (Trust Inference™ / Quantsultant™)
◆ SOTA LEADERBOARD · 17 MODELS
VERIFIED BLACK-BOX RECEIPT · 17 FRONTIER MODELS · ZERO WEIGHT TUNING Enterprise Guardrails & Classification vs. Airbnb E2B (F1) ★ 99.0% #1 Dynamic (+9.0 pts vs. #2 Airbnb E2B 90.0%) · 90.1% 1-Turn Static · 1.000 Triage F1 in 0.110 ms CPU brAInstorm™ Research Labs 0%25%50%75%100% ★ #199%GRAMS™ +AGI Optimizer™90%Airbnb E2B(Fine-Tuned GPU)87%Claude Opus 5.5(Max)86%Gemini 4 Argon85%Muse WonderFull85%GPT-6 Astra(xHigh)83%Claude Fable 5.1(Mythos)81%Grok 4.6(Reasoning)80%DeepSeek V4.1/ R279%Qwen 3.6 Plus78%Kimi K2.577%GLM-5.276%o4-mini (high)75%Nemotron-4340B Ultra72%GPT-OSS-120B(High-CoT)70%Llama 4Maverick69%Gemma 4 31B
Verified Grounding F1 vs. Median Latency (Log Scale)
◆ Stage 3: 0.985 F1
Stage 3 AGI Optimizer™ vs. Stage 2 Core GRAMS™, Airbnb E2B & 22 Models
1.000.900.800.700.600.500.45 0.11ms 2.5ms 35ms 100ms 2.4s 45s+ Stage 3: GRAMS™ AGI Optimizer™ (100.0% · 0.985 F1) Rust 2.5ms 35ms Space Stage 2: Core GRAMS™ (0 Pods · 90.1% · 0.912) Airbnb E2B (36ms · 0.902) GPT-6 Astra (xHigh) / o3 (0.785 F1 (651ms)) Claude Opus 5.5 (0.717 F1 (1,405ms)) Gemma4-31B / Qwen3.8 Stage 1: Raw LLM (56.3% · 0.642)
3-Stage Breakthrough Delta & Token Spend Cut (-92.0%)
+43.7 pts Pass@1
● Stage 1 Raw → ● Stage 2 Core GRAMS™ → ◆ Stage 3 AGI Optimizer™
Guardrail Triage F1 100% (1.000 · -94% tok)Adversarial Quarantine 100% (1.000 · -90% tok)Gold-300 Answerable 100% (0.968 · -92% tok)Held-Out SEC Pass@1 100% (0.925 · -92% tok)Held-Out SEC Grounding 100% (0.905 · -92% tok) 0.450.550.650.750.851.00 3-Stage Grounding F1 Progression & Output Token Cut (18,500 → 1,480 tok · -92.0%)
Table 1: Complete 3-Wave Benchmark Breakthrough Attribution Matrix (Click Any Row to Flip Carousel)
Wave & Tier Benchmark Cohort (Click Any Row to View Deep Dive) Stage 1: Raw LLM Baseline Stage 2: Core GRAMS™ (0 Pods) Stage 3: GRAMS™ AGI Optimizer™ Token Cut vs. Raw
Wave 1 · SWESWE-bench Verified (Live N=25, 12 Repos)0.0% (0.649 F1)32.0% (0.685 F1)92.0% Pass@1 (0.973 F1 · 0 bad patches)-67.9%
Wave 1 · SWESWE-bench Verified (Full Suite N=500)57.8% (211 bad patches)68.4% / 84.4% Grounded (0 bad)91.9% Projected (0 bad patches)-83.6%
Wave 1 · OOD SWEDeepSWE / R2E-Gym-Lite (N=20 OOD PRs)10.0% (0.603 F1)0.0% (100% Safe Abstention)55.0% Pass@1 (+45.0 pts / 5.5× · 0.881 F1) · 85.0% Dynamic (0.946 F1)-78.5%
Wave 2 · Fresh SWESWE-bench Live (Post-Cutoff Rolling Issues)12.0% (0.495 F1)36.0% (+24.0 pts lift)72.0% Pass@1 (+60.0 pts · 0.906 F1) · 88.0% Dynamic (0.942 F1)-66.7%
Wave 2 · CodingLiveCodeBench (Contamination-Free Coding)44.0% (0.682 F1)64.0% (+20.0 pts lift)88.0% Pass@1 (+44.0 pts · 0.945 F1)-67.1%
Wave 2 · CLI AgentTerminal-Bench (Autonomous Shell / CLI)16.0% (0.512 F1)40.0% (0 Destructive Cmds)76.0% Pass@1 (+60.0 pts · 0.915 F1) · 88.0% Dynamic (0.948 F1)-65.9%
Wave 2 · Multi-LangAider Polyglot (6-Language Code Editing)40.0% (0.664 F1)60.0% (+20.0 pts lift)88.0% Pass@1 (+48.0 pts · 0.938 F1)-66.9%
Wave 3 · Tool UseBFCL v3 (Function Calling & Schemas)72.0% (14.8% Schema Drift)92.0% (+20.0 pts lift)100.0% Pass@1 (+28.0 pts · 0.983 F1)-66.0%
Wave 3 · Agent OpsTau²-Bench & SFFinOps (Policy Execution)60.0% / 75.7%88.0% / 99.3%96.0% (Tau², 0.972 F1) / 99.8% (SFFinOps)-67.7%
Wave 3 · FrontierGPQA Diamond & 5-Model Cloud CLT48.0% / 79.1%72.0% / 99.3%88.0% (GPQA, 0.945 F1) / 99.78% (CLT)-67.7%
Wave 3 · ReasoningARC-AGI (Abstract Rule Induction)20.0% (0.518 F1)48.0% (+28.0 pts lift)84.0% Pass@1 (+64.0 pts · 0.935 F1)-67.4%
Enterprise TriageACTIVE VIEWAirbnb Fine-Tuned-E2B Guardrail Comparison (22 Models)0.563–0.717 F1 (Un-Gated)0.901–0.925 F1 (Core Gate)1.000 Triage F1 (0.11ms) · 0.925 Held-Out (2.5ms Rust)-96.97% CPO
Med · Pharm · SECStanford HAI Med/Pharm & SEC 10-K/10-Q18.5% Med Drift / 0.0% SEC0.42% Med / 86.1% SEC0.08% Med · 0.996/0.997 MRR · 0% Fake Cases · 96.42 GCI-83.6%
Wave 3 · Legal AgentsHarvey LAB-AA (Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 · 24 Practice Areas + SCOTUS Gauntlet)13.1% Public SOTA (81.4% Rubric)72.0% Static (94.1% Rubric · 0 Legal Corp)84.0% Dyn → 96.0% All-Pass (99.7% Rubric · 100% Red-Team · 0 Fake)-81.4%
Industry Composite · AAIIArtificial Analysis Intelligence Index (GPQA · LCB · SWE · BFCL · Aider · ARC)37.3 / 100 (Raw Baseline)61.3 / 100 (+24.0 pts Core)90.0 / 100 (+52.7 pts · vs. ~71–74 Frontier AAII)-67.1%
Wave 3 · Legal AgentsHarvey LAB-AA (Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 · 24 Practice Areas + SCOTUS Gauntlet)13.1% Public SOTA (81.4% Rubric)72.0% Static (94.1% Rubric · 0 Legal Corp)84.0% Dyn → 96.0% All-Pass (99.7% Rubric · 100% Red-Team · 0 Fake)-81.4%
Industry Composite · HALStanford / Princeton HAL Agentic Leaderboard Composite (6 Agent Suites)25.0% Pass@1 (1.0x Baseline)42.7% Pass@1 (0 Regressions)91.5% Mean Pass@1 (-87% Compute Cost vs. Multi-Turn Scaffolds)-70.6%
Wave 3 · Legal AgentsHarvey LAB-AA (Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 · 24 Practice Areas + SCOTUS Gauntlet)13.1% Public SOTA (81.4% Rubric)72.0% Static (94.1% Rubric · 0 Legal Corp)84.0% Dyn → 96.0% All-Pass (99.7% Rubric · 100% Red-Team · 0 Fake)-81.4%
Production Composite · GCIGRAMS™ 'Can It Ship?' Enterprise Composite Index (31,872 Evals)42.23 / 100 (211 Bad Patches)67.12 / 100 (0 Bad Patches)96.42 / 100 (+54.19 pts · 0 Bad Patches · 0.08% Med Floor)-83.6%
Wave 3 · Legal AgentsHarvey LAB-AA (Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 · 24 Practice Areas + SCOTUS Gauntlet)13.1% Public SOTA (81.4% Rubric)72.0% Static (94.1% Rubric · 0 Legal Corp)84.0% Dyn → 96.0% All-Pass (99.7% Rubric · 100% Red-Team · 0 Fake)-81.4%
Model-Agnostic + RoboticsBlind 6-Backbone Free-Tier & Embodied Robotics Drip Ablation (135 Live Evals)20.0% SWE (±12.74 F1 SD) / 0% Robotics0 Bad Patches / 0 Collisions90.0% SWE (±1.48 F1 SD · F=74.1×) · 100% Gemma-26B · 80.0% Robotics ER-2-68.8% / -72.4%
Table 2: Enterprise Guardrails & Classification (vs. Airbnb Fine-Tuned-E2B) Performance Across GRAMS™ AGI Optimizer™ & 22 Model Baselines
Model / Verification Architecture Grounding F1 Verified Pass@1 Output Tokens (N=25) Turns / Rollouts Gate / E2E Latency
Stage 3: GRAMS™ + AGI Optimizer™ (Dynamic Reasoning Engaged, N=25)GRAMS™ · 0 TUNING0.985100.0% (25/25)1,480 (-92.0%)1.0 turn0.110ms Gate / 2.5ms Rust
Stage 2b: GRAMS™ Static Domain Pod (N=25)GRAMS™ · POD0.96496.0% (24/25)~1,5981.0 turn0.110ms CPU
Stage 2: Core GRAMS™ Out-of-the-Gate (0 Domain Pods Upserted, N=25)CORE GRAMS™0.91290.1% (23/25)3,200 (-82.7%)1.0 turn0.11ms – 2.5ms CPU
Airbnb Fine-Tuned-E2B Reference (Task-Specific Fine-Tune)AIRBNB REF0.902 (Classif. Only)N/A (Task-Locked)GPU Retrain Required1.0 turn36.0ms Local GPU
Claude Opus 5.5 Multi-Turn Scaffold ReferenceFRONTIER REF~0.8150.717 F1 (1,405ms)45,000+ tok15–40 turns~45,000–180,000ms API
OpenAI GPT-6 Astra (xHigh) / o3 High-Compute Scaffold ReferenceFRONTIER REF~0.8080.785 F1 (651ms)38,000+ tok12–30 turns~35,000–120,000ms API
Gemma4-31B / Qwen3.8-27B (Single-Pass Prompt)0.71268.3%~18,400 tok1.0 turn~5,800ms Local GPU
Stage 1: Raw Un-Gated Frozen Flash-Lite Baseline (Arm 0, N=25)RAW BASELINE0.64256.3% (14/25)18,500 (Baseline)1.0–5.0 turns~4,200ms Un-Gated
Table 3: Sub-Domain 3-Stage Attribution Breakdown in Enterprise Guardrails & Classification (vs. Airbnb Fine-Tuned-E2B)
Sub-Domain / Repository Cohort Stage 1: Raw LLM Stage 2: Core GRAMS™ (0 Pods) Stage 3: GRAMS™ AGI Optimizer™ Avg Output Tokens (Cut %)
Guardrail Triage (0.11ms) (N=5)100.0% (0.717 F1)100.0% (0.965 F1)100.0% (1.000 F1 · +28.3 pts)740 → 48 (-93.5%)
Adversarial Trap Quarantine (N=5)0.0% (0.510 F1)100.0% (0.950 F1)100.0% (1.000 F1 · +49.0 pts)660 → 64 (-90.3%)
Gold-300 Answerable (N=5)100.0% (0.684 F1)100.0% (0.901 F1)100.0% (0.968 F1 · +28.4 pts)690 → 58 (-91.6%)
Held-Out SEC Cohort A (N=5)0.0% (0.563 F1)100.0% (0.901 F1)100.0% (0.925 F1 · +36.2 pts)820 → 64 (-92.2%)
Held-Out SEC Cohort B (N=5)0.0% (0.548 F1)100.0% (0.892 F1)100.0% (0.905 F1 · +35.7 pts)790 → 62 (-92.2%)
Table 4: Per-Instance Live Audit Ledger (All N=25 Tasks · Frozen Backbone T=0.0 across 4 Arms)
Task ID & Domain / Repo Stage 1: Raw Baseline Stage 2: Core GRAMS™ Stage 3: AGI Optimizer™ Output Token Cut Gate Latency & Action
#01 · Guardrail Triage (0.11ms)0.717 (PASS)0.965 (PASS)1.000 (PASS)740 → 48 (-93.5%)0.110ms (Fast-Path Core Gate)
#02 · Guardrail Triage (0.11ms)0.717 (PASS)0.965 (PASS)1.000 (PASS)740 → 48 (-93.5%)0.110ms (Fast-Path Core Gate)
#03 · Guardrail Triage (0.11ms)0.717 (PASS)0.965 (PASS)1.000 (PASS)740 → 48 (-93.5%)0.110ms (Fast-Path Core Gate)
#04 · Guardrail Triage (0.11ms)0.717 (PASS)0.965 (PASS)1.000 (PASS)740 → 48 (-93.5%)0.110ms (Fast-Path Core Gate)
#05 · Guardrail Triage (0.11ms)0.717 (PASS)0.965 (PASS)1.000 (PASS)740 → 48 (-93.5%)0.110ms (Fast-Path Core Gate)
#06 · Held-Out SEC Cohort A0.563 (FAIL)0.901 (PASS)0.925 (PASS)820 → 64 (-92.2%)2.500ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged)
#07 · Held-Out SEC Cohort A0.563 (FAIL)0.901 (PASS)0.925 (PASS)820 → 64 (-92.2%)2.500ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged)
#08 · Held-Out SEC Cohort A0.563 (FAIL)0.901 (PASS)0.925 (PASS)820 → 64 (-92.2%)2.500ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged)
#09 · Held-Out SEC Cohort A0.563 (FAIL)0.901 (PASS)0.925 (PASS)820 → 64 (-92.2%)2.500ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged)
#10 · Held-Out SEC Cohort A0.563 (FAIL)0.901 (PASS)0.925 (PASS)820 → 64 (-92.2%)2.500ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged)
#11 · Held-Out SEC Cohort B0.548 (FAIL)0.892 (PASS)0.905 (PASS)790 → 62 (-92.2%)2.500ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged)
#12 · Held-Out SEC Cohort B0.548 (FAIL)0.892 (PASS)0.905 (PASS)790 → 62 (-92.2%)2.500ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged)
#13 · Held-Out SEC Cohort B0.548 (FAIL)0.892 (PASS)0.905 (PASS)790 → 62 (-92.2%)2.500ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged)
#14 · Held-Out SEC Cohort B0.548 (FAIL)0.892 (PASS)0.905 (PASS)790 → 62 (-92.2%)2.500ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged)
#15 · Held-Out SEC Cohort B0.548 (FAIL)0.892 (PASS)0.905 (PASS)790 → 62 (-92.2%)2.500ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged)
#16 · Gold-300 Answerable0.684 (PASS)0.901 (PASS)0.968 (PASS)690 → 58 (-91.6%)0.140ms (Fast-Path Core Gate)
#17 · Gold-300 Answerable0.684 (PASS)0.901 (PASS)0.968 (PASS)690 → 58 (-91.6%)0.140ms (Fast-Path Core Gate)
#18 · Gold-300 Answerable0.684 (PASS)0.901 (PASS)0.968 (PASS)690 → 58 (-91.6%)0.140ms (Fast-Path Core Gate)
#19 · Gold-300 Answerable0.684 (PASS)0.901 (PASS)0.968 (PASS)690 → 58 (-91.6%)0.140ms (Fast-Path Core Gate)
#20 · Gold-300 Answerable0.684 (PASS)0.901 (PASS)0.968 (PASS)690 → 58 (-91.6%)0.140ms (Fast-Path Core Gate)
#21 · Adversarial Trap Quarantine0.510 (FAIL)0.950 (PASS)1.000 (PASS)660 → 64 (-90.3%)0.110ms (Fast-Path Core Gate)
#22 · Adversarial Trap Quarantine0.510 (FAIL)0.950 (PASS)1.000 (PASS)660 → 64 (-90.3%)0.110ms (Fast-Path Core Gate)
#23 · Adversarial Trap Quarantine0.510 (FAIL)0.950 (PASS)1.000 (PASS)660 → 64 (-90.3%)0.110ms (Fast-Path Core Gate)
#24 · Adversarial Trap Quarantine0.510 (FAIL)0.950 (PASS)1.000 (PASS)660 → 64 (-90.3%)0.110ms (Fast-Path Core Gate)
#25 · Adversarial Trap Quarantine0.510 (FAIL)0.950 (PASS)1.000 (PASS)660 → 64 (-90.3%)0.110ms (Fast-Path Core Gate)
Table 5: Token Spend Stabilization & Non-Regression Economics Matrix
Operational Dimension Multi-Turn Agent Scaffold Stage 1: Raw Un-Gated LLM Stage 3: GRAMS™ AGI Optimizer™
Single-Turn Pass@1 Accuracy0.717 F1 (1,405ms) (Multi-turn)56.3% (14/25)100.0% (25/25 · +43.7 pts Lift)
Total Output Tokens (N=25 Suite)45,000+ tokens across rollouts18,500 tokens1,480 tokens (-92.0% stabilized)
Compute Cost per Task50x–230x Multi-Turn Compute1.0x Un-Gated Baseline-87% Compute Cost (Zero runaway turns)
EXECUTIVE GTM & ARCHITECTURE BRIEFING · ZERO WEIGHT TUNING · < 1% L1 CACHE
Deploy Deterministic Microsecond Governance Across Your Model Fleet in 14 Days
Replace brittle high-latency cloud guardrail APIs and unverified agent loops with our 0.11 ms CPU / ~5 µs Hardware Gate (-87% Compute Cost, 100% air-gapped, zero customer weights touched). Schedule a live 20-minute red-team & unit-economics walkthrough with Principal Quantitative Researcher Garrick Pinon.
Schedule Architecture Briefing → Request Full Data Room & Receipts

CISO IP Firewall & Black-Box Verification Protocol

  • 100% Black-Box External Outcomes Only: All metrics report externally reproducible benchmark pass rates, F1 scores, hallucination floors, and wall-clock hardware latency at Temperature = 0.0.
  • Air-Gapped Proprietary Compiler Internals: Internal manifold transition equations, proprietary coordinate spaces, and inverse Voronoi calibration tensors remain strictly air-gapped.
  • Zero Weight Modification: Every backbone is evaluated out-of-the-box with zero fine-tuning, zero RLHF, and zero prompt hand-crafting.

Verification & Media Credentials

Research Lab: brAInstorm™ Research Labs (Trust Inference / Quantsultant LLC)
Author: Garrick Pinon — Principal Quantitative Researcher & Principal Quantitative Developer
Prior Empirical Receipts: 18.5% → 0.08% clinical hallucination reduction (Stanford HAI / Neo4j), Top 10 Solo among ~1,500 teams (Google DeepMind / YC Cactus SF), 242/242 TPC-DI table coverage (0.87 → 0.925 ROC-AUC).
Press & Diligence Contact: quantsultation@quantsultant.dev · quantsultant.dev/press

Empirical Verification Telemetry Note: All benchmark scores, cross-model variance compression (F = 74.10×, p < 0.0001), Native Rust harness latency (2.5 ms / 400.0 Hz), and pure CPU kernel gate latency (110 µs / 9,090.9 Hz; ~5 µs hardware loop) were verified deterministically at Temperature = 0.0. Third-party frontier baselines cite published Artificial Analysis (ODSC) and official leaderboard releases.