Models / Model Launch Check

Decide a model release against the same checks.

Compare model candidates under the same checks, replay known failures, identify blockers, collect approvals, and produce a source-linked launch file.

Available nowScoped around one candidate set and release decision.

Input, work, and output

A stage advances only when its required evidence and owner are visible.

01
Candidate input
Confirm candidate versions, owners, intended release, and evaluation context.
Candidate manifest
02
Same-check comparison
Lock the rubric and source slice before scores or rank are displayed.
Comparison matrix and source runs
03
Regression replay
Replay retained failures and keep each failed case visible.
Regression outcomes and affected versions
04
Blockers
Name every failed, missing, expired, or permission-restricted requirement.
Blocker owner and recovery
05
Approval
Show who can approve, who has approved, and what remains.
Approval chain and timestamps
06
Launch file
Export the decision, evidence, destination, checksum, and rollback.
Signed release packet

Candidate: Model and version identityProvider, owner, stage, and intended destination
Checks: Evaluation, regression, safety, operating, and policy stateVersioned source runs and evidence
Blockers: Failed, missing, expired, or restricted requirementNamed owner, consequence, and recovery
Approval: Required signers and completed decisionsActor, role, time, scope, and expiration
Release: Launch destination, manifest, checksum, and rollbackGenerated launch file

What the decision record supports.
Outcome	Work	Evidence	Boundary
Ship	All required checks pass, approvals are current, and rollback is present.	Source-linked results, approvers, launch manifest, and generated time.	Approval applies only to the named candidate, environment, checks, and release scope.
Hold	A required check fails, expires, or lacks sufficient evidence.	Blocking criterion, failed source run, consequence, owner, and next action.	Hold remains active until the required evidence is regenerated and approved.
Return for work	The candidate needs remediation, new evaluation, or a corrected release record.	Returned items, responsible owner, expected evidence, and review route.	The workflow does not imply a fix; it records the required work and gate.

Inspectable evidence

The example uses descriptive states because final scores must come from the customer's actual source runs.

Representative product state

The states below illustrate the interaction contract. Customer decisions use current source runs, named owners, and actual approvals.

Same checks

Candidate oneCandidate two