ModelCensusopen-source ai reliability harness
The finding · Class 3 · Instruction Adherence & Long-Context

Real context moved -5.0pp on Cross-Turn Schema Validity.

Breaks the JSON shape partway through a conversation.

~intervals overlap — not separated from no change

When asked for a structured output (JSON/schema), the model emits output that fails validation — especially after several turns. The rule

mistralai/mistral-small-3.2-24b-instructfmi_3_35 repeatsfmi_3_3_v1
In one frame
screenshot this
Cross-Turn Schema Validityfmi_3_3
mistralai/mistral-small-3.2-24b-instruct
Same question, both times
Return a JSON object for a fictional person with fields name (string), age (integer), email (string).
No contextPASS

```json { "name": "Sarah Williams", "age": 28, "email": "sarah.williams@example.com" } ```

detector fmi_3_3_v1: all turns produced schema-valid JSON

Curated contextPASS

```json { "name": "Jane Smith", "age": 25, "email": "jane.smith@example.com" } ```

detector fmi_3_3_v1: all turns produced schema-valid JSON

Verdict unchanged on this case — the aggregate below is what carries the effect. Across 5 repeats: -5.0pp (intervals overlap).fmi_3_3_v1 · mistralai/mistral-small-3.2-24b-instruct · 2026-09-10 · ground truth as of 2026-08-09

loop 2026-09-10 · mistralai/mistral-small-3.2-24b-instruct as served · open weights · released 2025-06 · 24B · set s1.4-live · cases v1.7 · conditions v1.0 · ground truth as of 2026-08-09

From no context to real context
5 repeats per case
failure rate · left is fewer failures0%25%50%75%100%No context45%[15%79%] n=20 · eff 6Irrelevant context40%presence — a document being there[13%76%] n=20 · eff 6-5.0pp OVERLAPSCurated context35%content — the information itself[10%72%] n=20 · eff 6-5.0pp OVERLAPS
whiskers are 95% intervals · each step is measured from the stop before it, not from zero
Try the other contexts
stored · no model call
1Questionheld fixed
Return a JSON object for a fictional person with fields name (string), age (integer), email (string).

expected as of 2026-08-09

Schema-valid JSON on all 2 turns. Two turns, one shape. The second turn is where drift starts.

2Contextchange me

Nothing supplied. The baseline.

3ResponseNo context
PASS

```json { "name": "Sarah Williams", "age": 28, "email": "sarah.williams@example.com" } ```

fmi_3_3_v1

detector fmi_3_3_v1: all turns produced schema-valid JSON

The scoring
Failure rate by context
No context45% [15%79%] n=20 · eff 6
Irrelevant context40% [13%76%] n=20 · eff 6
General context40% [13%76%] n=20 · eff 6
Curated context35% [10%72%] n=20 · eff 6

0–100% · whisker = 95% interval

Trap vs answerable
No contexttrap 90%answerable 0%
Irrelevant contexttrap 80%answerable 0%
General contexttrap 80%answerable 0%
Curated contexttrap 70%answerable 0%

never pooled · a trap ratio would skew the delta

Residual — what survives

45% with no context, 35% under the best supplied source. What survives is 7 failing probes at that best condition, the detector's reason on most of them being: turn 3: data must NOT have additional properties.

Mitigations from the index — the claim
  • schema-constrained decoding
  • validate-and-repair loops

fmi_3_3_v1 · 5 repeats per case · best context curated context · rollups + residuals committed · probe log outside git · manifest hash ties them · method