Claim · 2026-10-23 · revision · Stated in source · Supported

Muse Spark 1.3 Evaluation Report states what the model-card question “Stated limits” asks.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

Muse Spark 1.3 Evaluation Report → states provision → Stated limits

Where it appears

No collection page holds this claim. It is listed with its records in the explorer.

Claim and evidence

Muse Spark 1.3 Evaluation Reportstates provision ↓Stated limits

Machine-checkedStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Provision: Model-card question · provision ID model-card-q16
Subject version: The expression dated October 23, 2026 · Publication date unknown · Effective date not established · Revised 2026-10-23
Date: 2026-10-23 · revision Records dated 2026 →

Scope and limitsThe report states limits of individual assessments; several sections carry their own 'Limitations' paragraphs. What the card states, quoted from the expression read. A card is the developer’s own account: not evidence that an evaluation was run as described, that a safeguard works, or that a finding is independent.

The evidence 02

primary sourceSupports the claim

Muse Spark 1.3 Evaluation Report

Meta · Publication date unknown

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“using the helpful-only variant of Muse Spark 1.3 can also slightly underestimate performance”

Location in source Section 2.3.1.1 Acceleration of AI Development, PDF p. 36 (printed p. 35)

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-11-03

Source details and check notes

Authors: Meta
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-02 (SHA-256 84df67c9f4610e574fd82f39227b0e6a266e6e1fd0e6ea21c3420f1661e0835e) directly from the publisher’s host. Retrieved again on 2026-11-03 with the same SHA-256. PDF served at the address linked from Meta's announcement of September 2, 2026; the report prints 'Date: October 23, 2026' (PDF metadata also records creation on 2026-10-23). An earlier text at the same address, if any, was not retrieved.
Version date: 2026-10-23
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-11-02
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Meta, “Muse Spark 1.3 Evaluation Report”.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, model cards compared (research/model-cards). The quotation (13 words) matched the card’s text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-02 (SHA-256 84df67c9f4610e574fd82f39227b0e6a266e6e1fd0e6ea21c3420f1661e0835e) and again on 2026-11-03 in a fresh retrieval with the same SHA-256. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes, PDF line-break hyphens and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review.

primary sourceSupports the claim

Muse Spark 1.3 Evaluation Report

Meta · Publication date unknown

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“We find no broad decline in CoT monitorability relative to Muse Spark 1.1, though more comprehensive evaluation is needed.”

Location in source Section 1.1.1 Risk Assessment Summary, PDF p. 9 (printed p. 8)

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-11-03

Source details and check notes

Authors: Meta
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-02 (SHA-256 84df67c9f4610e574fd82f39227b0e6a266e6e1fd0e6ea21c3420f1661e0835e) directly from the publisher’s host. Retrieved again on 2026-11-03 with the same SHA-256. PDF served at the address linked from Meta's announcement of September 2, 2026; the report prints 'Date: October 23, 2026' (PDF metadata also records creation on 2026-10-23). An earlier text at the same address, if any, was not retrieved.
Version date: 2026-10-23
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-11-02
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Meta, “Muse Spark 1.3 Evaluation Report”.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, model cards compared (research/model-cards). The quotation (19 words) matched the card’s text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-02 (SHA-256 84df67c9f4610e574fd82f39227b0e6a266e6e1fd0e6ea21c3420f1661e0835e) and again on 2026-11-03 in a fresh retrieval with the same SHA-256. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes, PDF line-break hyphens and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review.

Status and meaning

Editorial status. Machine-checked. Machines found this record and checked it against its sources; no person accepted it individually. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.

Relation. An exact framework edition, or another document with an exact expression, states one provision: a capability threshold or risk level and its trigger, a required safeguard or action, a decision authority (who decides, recommends, can overrule or is informed), a stated exception, or another statement of its content, such as a licence term or a prospectus statement. The passage records what the document says, not implementation, compliance or effectiveness. Provisions with the same key align across editions of one family.

Date. Dated as the card read is dated: the date of its revision, as the source records it.

Record ID mc-cell-meta-muse-spark-1-3-q16