Gemini 2.5 Flash: good at reading, sloppy at closure
Gemini 2.5 Flash understood many of the synthetic paperwork cases, but repeatedly failed the exact final contract: valid JSON, proof codes, and workflow checksum closure.
Gemini 2.5 Flash is not a local model. It is included as a cheap API comparison point, so the local rows have something current and capable to measure against.
The result is useful because it separates document understanding from finished work. Gemini often got the central facts close enough for a human reviewer, then failed strict resolution on the proof step or output format.
Where it worked
- Reached core-pass level on five of nine practical cases.
- Often identified the right document situation before failing the final checksum.
- Generated a valid standalone City Plan SVG sample.
Where it failed
- Zero strict resolved cases.
- Repeatedly emitted proof codes as expressions or wrong final numbers.
- A few near misses were invalid JSON or wrong proof.txt closure rather than broad comprehension failures.
- It should not be read as a local privacy-preserving model result.