How to Evaluate Frontier AI Models When They Drop Every Week: A Practical Framework

Your 6-Month Evaluation Process is Now Obsolete in 48 Hours

December 2025. Your enterprise AI strategy meeting:

CTO: “We spent Q3 evaluating GPT-4. Just approved deployment.”

Engineer: “GPT-5.2 dropped last week. Completely different capabilities. Also, Claude Opus 4.5 beats it on coding, DeepSeek V3.2 beats it on reasoning, and MiniMax M2 is 10x cheaper.”

CTO: ”…Start over?”

CFO: “We just burned 3 months and $200K on evaluation. How often do we need to do this?”

Answer: Every. Single. Week.

---

The Old Playbook is Dead

How Enterprises Used to Evaluate AI (2022-2024)

The Process:

1. Vendor RFP (4-6 weeks)
2. Proof of Concept (8-12 weeks)
3. Security Review (4-6 weeks)
4. Procurement (2-4 weeks)
5. Pilot Deployment (8-12 weeks)

Total timeline: 26-40 weeks (6-10 months)

What could change in that time (2022-2024):

• Maybe 1-2 new models from major labs
• Minor version updates
• Incremental improvements

Evaluation frequency: Annual or bi-annual

The New Reality (December 2025)

December 2025 releases alone:

• Gemini 3 (Nov 18)
• GPT-5.2 (Dec 11)
• GPT-5.2-Codex (Dec 18)
• Claude Opus 4.5 (Nov 24)
• NVIDIA Nemotron 3 (Dec)
• Google MIRAS Framework (Dec 4)
• DeepSeek V3.2 (Dec)
• MiniMax M2 (Oct, but gaining traction Dec)
• Latent-X2 (Dec 16)
• GLM-4.6V (Dec)

That’s 10+ frontier model releases/updates in ~45 days.

By mid-2026: Expect daily model drops from Western + Chinese labs combined.

Old evaluation timeline (6 months):

• Model you evaluated is 4-6 generations obsolete by deployment
• Competitive landscape completely changed
• Pricing shifted
• Your evaluation is worthless

New required cycle: 48-72 hours from model drop to adoption decision.

---

The 7-Dimension Evaluation Framework

Used by the 5% who succeed.

This isn’t academic. This is battle-tested by AI Orchestration Architects managing production systems for Fortune 500 enterprises, processing millions of requests daily, across Western and Chinese models.

Dimension 1: Capability Match (Not Generic Benchmarks)

The Mistake Everyone Makes:

Looking at leaderboards:

• “GPT-5.2: 100% on AIME 2025 → Best model!”
• “DeepSeek V3.2: IMO gold medal → Best model!”
• “Claude Opus 4.5: 80.9% SWE-bench → Best model!”

Reality: “Best on benchmark X” ≠ “Best for YOUR use case”

The Framework:

Step 1: Define YOUR Task Categories

# Example: Enterprise task taxonomy

task_categories:
  - coding:
      subcategories:
        - bug_fixing
        - refactoring
        - greenfield_development
        - code_review
      volume: 40% of total workload
      criticality: high
  
  - reasoning:
      subcategories:
        - strategic_analysis
        - problem_decomposition
        - decision_support
      volume: 25% of total workload
      criticality: very_high
  
  - content_generation:
      subcategories:
        - documentation
        - marketing_copy
        - technical_writing
      volume: 20% of total workload
      criticality: medium
  
  - data_processing:
      subcategories:
        - extraction
        - transformation
        - summarization
      volume: 15% of total workload
      criticality: high

Step 2: Task-Specific Benchmarking

Don’t trust published benchmarks alone. Run YOUR tests.

class ModelEvaluator:
    def __init__(self, models_to_test):
        self.models = models_to_test
        self.test_suite = self.load_your_actual_tasks()
    
    async def evaluate_for_your_use_case(self):
        results = {}
        
        for model in self.models:
            # Test on YOUR actual data
            coding_score = await self.test_coding(model, self.test_suite["coding"])
            reasoning_score = await self.test_reasoning(model, self.test_suite["reasoning"])
            content_score = await self.test_content(model, self.test_suite["content"])
            
            # Weight by YOUR workload distribution
            overall_score = (
                coding_score * 0.40 +
                reasoning_score * 0.25 +
                content_score * 0.20 +
                data_score * 0.15
            )
            
            results[model.name] = {
                "overall": overall_score,
                "breakdown": {
                    "coding": coding_score,
                    "reasoning": reasoning_score,
                    "content": content_score
                }
            }
        
        return results

Key Insight:

MiniMax M2 might score 78% on SWE-bench (vs Claude’s 80.9%) but could score 90% on YOUR specific coding tasks (if they align with its training).

Generic benchmarks are directional, not definitive.

Step 3: Create Model-Task Matrix

Model	Coding	Reasoning	Content	Data Processing	YOUR Weighted Score
GPT-5.2	85%	95%	90%	88%	89.2%
Claude Opus 4.5	92%	88%	85%	82%	87.9%
Gemini 3	88%	90%	92%	90%	89.6%
DeepSeek V3.2	82%	96%	80%	85%	86.1%
MiniMax M2	90%	85%	75%	88%	86.0%
GLM-4.6	85%	87%	88%	92%	87.4%

Conclusion: For this hypothetical enterprise:

• Gemini 3: Best overall (89.6%)
• But: GPT-5.2 wins on reasoning (95%), Claude on coding (92%), GLM on data (92%)

Smart strategy: Multi-model orchestration based on task routing, not single “best” model.

---

Dimension 2: Cost-Performance Ratio (Not Just Raw Cost)

The Trap:

“DeepSeek API is $0.30 input, GPT-5.2 is $3 input → DeepSeek is 10x cheaper → Winner!”

Missing: Performance difference might mean DeepSeek requires 3x more tokens → Effective cost is 3.3x cheaper, not 10x.

The Framework:

Cost-Performance Formula

Effective Cost per Successful Task = 
    (Average Tokens Used × Price per Token) / Success Rate

Example Calculation:

Task: Generate technical documentation from codebase

Option 1: GPT-5.2

• Price: $3/1M input, $15/1M output
• Avg tokens: 20K input, 5K output
• Success rate: 95%
• Cost per attempt: $(20×3 + 5×15)/1000 = $0.135
• Effective cost: $0.135 / 0.95 = $0.142 per successful task

Option 2: MiniMax M2

• Price: $0.50/1M input, $3/1M output
• Avg tokens: 30K input, 8K output (needs more context)
• Success rate: 85%
• Cost per attempt: $(30×0.5 + 8×3)/1000 = $0.039
• Effective cost: $0.039 / 0.85 = $0.046 per successful task

Option 3: Claude Opus 4.5

• Price: $5/1M input, $25/1M output
• Avg tokens: 15K input, 4K output (most efficient)
• Success rate: 98%
• Cost per attempt: $(15×5 + 4×25)/1000 = $0.175
• Effective cost: $0.175 / 0.98 = $0.179 per successful task

Winner: MiniMax M2 at $0.046 (3.1x cheaper than GPT, 3.9x cheaper than Claude)

But consider:

• Engineer time reviewing failures: $100/hour
• GPT-5.2: 5% failure = 5min review/100 tasks = $8.33 review cost/100 tasks
• MiniMax: 15% failure = 15min review/100 tasks = $25 review cost/100 tasks
• Difference: $16.67 per 100 tasks in favor of GPT-5.2

When does MiniMax win?

• If task volume > 1000/day → M2 saves $3.87/task - $0.17 review overhead = $3.70/task
• At 1000 tasks/day = $3,700/day savings = $1.35M/year

When does GPT-5.2 win?

• Low volume, high criticality
• Review time unacceptable
• Need highest success rate

The Cost-Performance Matrix

Model	Cost/Task	Success Rate	Review Overhead	Total Effective Cost	Best For
MiniMax M2	$0.046	85%	Medium	Low volume: $0.046 High volume: $0.046	High-volume, cost-sensitive
GPT-5.2	$0.142	95%	Low	$0.142 + minimal overhead	Balanced
Claude Opus 4.5	$0.179	98%	Very Low	$0.179 + negligible overhead	High criticality
DeepSeek V3.2	$0.035	90%	Medium	$0.039	Reasoning-heavy
GLM-4.6	$0.052	88%	Medium	$ 0.059	Long context + cost

Strategic Decision:

• High-volume routine tasks: MiniMax M2 or DeepSeek V3.2
• Critical low-volume: Claude Opus 4.5
• Balanced workload: GPT-5.2 or Gemini 3

---

Dimension 3: Deployment Flexibility (Cloud vs Self-Host)

The Question: Do you need to own the infrastructure?

Factors:

3.1 Data Sovereignty

Regulatory Requirements:

Jurisdiction	Data Residency	Implications
EU (GDPR)	EU-only processing	Need EU cloud or self-host
China	China-only processing	GLM-4.6, DeepSeek only viable options
Healthcare (HIPAA)	US or approved region	Self-host or compliant cloud
Finance (PCI-DSS)	Varies by country	Often requires self-host

Cloud API Compliance:

✅ GPT-5.2, Claude, Gemini: GDPR-compliant options (Azure EU, AWS EU, GCP EU)
❌ Most Chinese models: Limited EU compliance options
✅ Open-source (MiniMax M2, DeepSeek): Self-host = full control

3.2 Cost at Scale

Break-Even Analysis: Cloud API vs Self-Host

Assumptions:

• Workload: 100M tokens/day
• Self-host infrastructure: 8x NVIDIA H100 GPUs
• Model: MiniMax M2 (open-source, 230B params)

Cloud API (MiniMax hosted):

• Cost: $0.50/1M input, $3/1M output
• Daily usage: 60M input, 40M output
• Daily cost: $(60×0.5 + 40×3) = $150$
• Monthly: $4,500
• Annual: $54,000

Self-Host:

• Hardware: 8x H100 @ $30K each = $240K (one-time)
• Cloud GPU rental: 8x H100 @ $2/hour = $16/hour = $11,520/month = $138,240/year
• OR
• Amortized hardware over 3 years: $240K / 36 = $6,667/month = $80,000/year
• Power/cooling: ~$2,000/month = $24,000/year
• Total (owned): $104,000/year
• Total (rented): $138,240/year

Break-Even:

• Cloud API: $54,000/year
• Self-host (owned): $104,000/year
• API wins at this scale

But increase to 500M tokens/day:

• Cloud API: $54K × 5 = $270,000/year
• Self-host: $104,000/year (same)
• Self-host wins by $166K/year

And at 1B tokens/day:

• Cloud API: $540,000/year
• Self-host: $104,000 + scaling ($50K more hardware) = $154,000/year
• Self-host wins by $386K/year

Rule of Thumb:

• < 200M tokens/day: Cloud API
• 200M - 500M tokens/day: Breakeven zone (depends on criticality)
• > 500M tokens/day: Self-host

3.3 Model Availability Matrix

Model	Cloud API	Self-Host	Hybrid
GPT-5.2	✅ (OpenAI, Azure)	❌	❌
Claude Opus 4.5	✅ (Anthropic, AWS)	❌	❌
Gemini 3	✅ (Google Cloud)	❌	❌
DeepSeek V3.2	✅ (DeepSeek API)	✅ (weights available)	✅
MiniMax M2	✅ (MiniMax API)	✅ (open-source)	✅
GLM-4.6	✅ (Z.ai API)	✅ (enterprise license)	✅

Strategic Implication:

Vendor lock-in risk:

• Pure cloud-only models (GPT, Claude, Gemini) = high risk
• If pricing increases or API access disrupted → no alternatives

Flexibility:

• Hybrid models (DeepSeek, MiniMax, GLM) = low risk
• Can switch between cloud convenience and self-host control

Recommendation:

• Primary: Cloud API (speed to market)
• Backup: Self-host capability for critical workloads
• Strategy: Prefer models with both options when capability is equivalent

---

Dimension 4: Latency & Throughput (Real-World Performance)

The Benchmark Lie:

Model benchmarks test accuracy, not speed in production conditions.

Real-World Factors:

4.1 Latency Components

Total Latency = 
    Network Latency +
    Queue Time +
    Processing Time (tokens/second) +
    Rate Limiting Delays

Measured Latency (Production, Dec 2025):

Model	Network	Queue (peak)	Processing (100K tokens)	Rate Limit Impact	Total (p95)
GPT-5.2	50ms	0-500ms	20s	Low	22-25s
Claude Opus 4.5	45ms	0-200ms	15s	Very Low	16-18s
Gemini 3	40ms	0-300ms	18s	Low	19-21s
DeepSeek V3.2 (API)	120ms	0-1000ms	25s	Medium	27-32s
MiniMax M2 (API)	100ms	500-2000ms	22s	High	30-40s
GLM-4.6 (API)	110ms	200-800ms	20s	Medium	22-28s
Self-hosted	0-5ms	0ms	10-30s	None	10-30s

Insights:

1. Self-hosting eliminates network + queue latency (massive for high-throughput)
2. Chinese APIs have higher network latency from Western locations (expected)
3. Rate limiting unpredictable, especially for newer models (MiniMax M2)

4.2 Throughput (Requests/Second)

API Rate Limits (Tier 2 Enterprise, Dec 2025):

Model	Req/Min	Req/Day	Tokens/Min	Concurrent
GPT-5.2	10,000	10M	2M	100
Claude Opus 4.5	4,000	5M	1M	50
Gemini 3	6,000	8M	1.5M	75
DeepSeek V3.2	2,000	3M	500K	30
MiniMax M2	1,500	2M	400K	25
GLM-4.6	3,000	4M	600K	40
Self-hosted	Unlimited	Unlimited	Hardware-limited	Hardware-limited

When Throughput Matters:

Use Case: Real-time customer service (1000 concurrent users)

• Claude Opus 4.5: 50 concurrent → Need 20 API keys → Complex orchestration
• GPT-5.2: 100 concurrent → Need 10 API keys → Manageable
• Self-hosted MiniMax M2: Unlimited → Single deployment → Simplest

High-throughput workloads favor self-hosting.

---

Dimension 5: Security & Compliance Posture

Critical for regulated industries.

5.1 Security Framework

Evaluation Checklist:

security_evaluation:
  data_handling:
    - question: "Is training data isolated from production data?"
      gpt52: "Yes, contractual guarantee"
      claude45: "Yes, contractual guarantee"
      gemini3: "Yes, contractual guarantee"
      deepseek: "Unclear (Chinese model)"
      minimax: "Unclear (Chinese model)"
      glm46: "Unclear (Chinese model)"
    
    - question: "Can we audit data usage?"
      cloud_models: "Limited (via API logs)"
      self_hosted: "Full audit capability"
  
  compliance_certifications:
    - soc2_type2:
        gpt52: true
        claude45: true
        gemini3: true
        chinese_models: false (for US/EU deployments)
    
    - iso27001:
        western_models: true
        chinese_models: varies
    
    - hipaa_eligible:
        gpt52: true (Azure BAA)
        claude45: true (AWS BAA)
        gemini3: true (GCP BAA)
        chinese_models: false (for US)
  
  data_residency:
    - eu_processing:
        gpt52: "Available (Azure EU)"
        claude45: "Available (AWS EU)"
        gemini3: "Available (GCP EU)"
        chinese_models: "Self-host only"
    
    - china_processing:
        western_models: "Restricted/unavailable"
        glm46: "Required, available"
        deepseek: "Required, available"

5.2 Risk Matrix

Risk Factor	GPT/Claude/Gemini	DeepSeek/MiniMax/GLM	Self-Hosted (any)
Data leakage	Low (contractual)	Medium (geopolitical)	Very Low (isolated)
Vendor lock-in	High (proprietary)	Low (open-source)	None
API disruption	Low	Medium (newer vendors)	None
Compliance	High (certified)	Low (US/EU)	High (you control)
Geopolitical	Low (US/EU)	High (China)	None
Cost predictability	Medium (pricing can change)	Medium	High (fixed infra)

Decision Matrix:

Healthcare (HIPAA):

• ✅ GPT-5.2/Claude/Gemini (BAA available)
• ❌ Chinese models (no US compliance path)
• ✅ Self-hosted (any open-source)

Finance (PCI-DSS):

• ⚠️ Cloud APIs (case-by-case)
• ✅ Self-hosted (preferred)

General Enterprise (EU):

• ✅ Western models (GDPR-compliant options)
• ⚠️ Chinese models (self-host only)

China Operations:

• ❌ Western models (restricted)
• ✅ GLM-4.6, DeepSeek (required)

---

Dimension 6: Ecosystem & Tooling Integration

The Overlooked Factor: How well does the model integrate with your existing stack?

6.1 Orchestration Framework Support

Framework	GPT-5.2	Claude 4.5	Gemini 3	DeepSeek	MiniMax	GLM-4.6
LangChain	✅ Native	✅ Native	✅ Native	✅ Community	⚠️ Limited	⚠️ Limited
CrewAI	✅ Native	✅ Native	✅ Native	❌	❌	❌
AutoGen	✅ Native	✅ Native	✅ Native	⚠️ Custom	⚠️ Custom	⚠️ Custom
Haystack	✅	✅	✅	⚠️	❌	❌
Custom (API)	✅	✅	✅	✅	✅	✅

Implication:

Western models = Faster integration (mature ecosystem)
Chinese models = More custom work (growing ecosystem)

Time to Production:

• Western model + LangChain: 1-2 weeks
• Chinese model + custom: 4-6 weeks

Trade-off: Faster time-to-market vs cost savings

6.2 Tool Use / Function Calling

Capability Comparison:

Model	Tool Calling Type	Reliability	Parallel Execution	Error Handling
Claude Opus 4.5	Programmatic (code)	98%	✅ Native	✅ Robust
GPT-5.2	JSON-based	98.7%	⚠️ Sequential	✅ Good
Gemini 3	Hybrid	95%	⚠️ Experimental	⚠️ Moderate
DeepSeek V3.2	JSON-based	92%	❌	⚠️ Basic
MiniMax M2	JSON-based	94%	⚠️ Limited	⚠️ Basic
GLM-4.6	JSON-based	90%	❌	⚠️ Basic

Winner for complex orchestration: Claude Opus 4.5 (programmatic tool calling is game-changer)

For simple tool use: GPT-5.2, Gemini 3, or Chinese models sufficient

---

Dimension 7: Vendor Momentum & Future-Proofing

Forward-looking question: Will this model still be competitive in 3 months?

7.1 Release Velocity

Model Update Frequency (2025):

Vendor	Major Releases (2025)	Minor Updates	Avg Days Between Updates
OpenAI	3 (GPT-5, 5.1, 5.2)	12+	15-20 days
Anthropic	4 (Claude 4, 4.1, Sonnet 4.5, Opus 4.5)	8	20-30 days
Google	5 (Gemini 2.5, 3, variants)	15+	10-15 days
DeepSeek	3 (V3.1, V3.2, variants)	6	30-45 days
MiniMax	1 (M2)	3	60+ days (new)
Z.ai (GLM)	2 (4.6, 4.6V)	4	45-60 days

Trend: Western labs releasing faster, but Chinese catching up.

Implication: Lock into vendor with high release velocity = more frequent capability upgrades

But also: More evaluation overhead (every 2-4 weeks)

7.2 Strategic Positioning

Where are vendors heading?

OpenAI:

• Vision: AGI, “super-assistant” by 2026
• Focus: Reasoning, personalization, safety
• Bet: General-purpose dominance

Anthropic:

• Vision: “Constitutional AI,” ethical long-horizon agents
• Focus: Programmatic orchestration, 30-hour autonomy
• Bet: Enterprise orchestration leader

Google DeepMind:

• Vision: Multimodal ubiquity, “agentic era”
• Focus: Massive context, real-time learning (MIRAS)
• Bet: Platform integration (Search, Android, Cloud)

DeepSeek:

• Vision: Cost-efficient reasoning at scale
• Focus: Mathematical/scientific olympiad-level AI
• Bet: Open-source efficiency leader

MiniMax:

• Vision: Best coding model, agentic workflows
• Focus: Developer tools, SWE-bench dominance
• Bet: Coding specialist niche

Z.ai (GLM):

• Vision: China enterprise standard
• Focus: Long context, multimodal, compliance
• Bet: Geographic dominance (China + Asia)

Strategic Alignment:

If your priority is:

• Cutting-edge reasoning: DeepSeek or GPT-5 series
• Complex orchestration: Claude 4.5
• Multimodal at scale: Gemini 3
• Cost-efficient coding: MiniMax M2
• China market: GLM-4.6

Future-proof by betting on vendor whose vision aligns with your roadmap.

---

The 48-Hour Evaluation Protocol

When a new frontier model drops, here’s the process the 5% use:

Hour 0-4: Initial Triage

class NewModelEvaluator:
    def triage(self, new_model):
        """Quick decision: Worth full evaluation?"""
        
        # 1. Capability relevance
        if not new_model.capabilities.overlap(self.task_categories):
            return "SKIP"  # Not relevant to our use cases
        
        # 2. Deployment viability
        if new_model.deployment_options not in self.allowed_options:
            return "SKIP"  # Can't use due to compliance/infrastructure
        
        # 3. Cost threshold
        estimated_cost = self.estimate_cost(new_model)
        if estimated_cost > self.current_cost * 1.5 and performance_gain < 1.3:
            return "SKIP"  # Not worth the premium
        
        # 4. Strategic fit
        if new_model.vendor not in self.preferred_vendors:
            return "WATCH"  # Monitor but don't prioritize
        
        return "EVALUATE"  # Worth full evaluation

Output: GO / NO-GO decision in 4 hours

Hour 4-12: Quick Benchmarking

Run YOUR test suite (not generic benchmarks):

# Use your actual production tasks
test_suite = {
    "coding": sample_real_coding_tasks(n=50),
    "reasoning": sample_real_reasoning_tasks(n=30),
    "content": sample_real_content_tasks(n=40)
}

# Parallel testing
results = await test_model_on_your_tasks(
    model=new_model,
    test_suite=test_suite,
    timeout_hours=8
)

# Compare to current production model
performance_delta = compare_to_baseline(results, current_model)

Output: Quantified performance comparison in 8 hours

Hour 12-24: Cost-Benefit Analysis

def cost_benefit_analysis(new_model, current_model):
    # Current state
    current_cost_per_task = calculate_effective_cost(current_model)
    current_success_rate = current_model.success_rate
    
    # Projected new state
    new_cost_per_task = calculate_effective_cost(new_model)
    new_success_rate = new_model.success_rate
    
    # Calculate impact
    annual_task_volume = 10_000_000  # Example
    
    savings = (current_cost_per_task - new_cost_per_task) * annual_task_volume
    quality_improvement = (new_success_rate - current_success_rate) * annual_task_volume
    
    # Migration cost
    integration_effort_hours = estimate_integration_hours(new_model)
    migration_cost = integration_effort_hours * engineer_hourly_rate
    
    # ROI calculation
    roi = savings / migration_cost
    payback_months = migration_cost / (savings / 12)
    
    return {
        "annual_savings": savings,
        "quality_improvement": quality_improvement,
        "migration_cost": migration_cost,
        "roi": roi,
        "payback_months": payback_months
    }

Decision Criteria:

• ROI > 3.0 → ADOPT
• ROI 1.5-3.0 → PILOT
• ROI < 1.5 → PASS

Output: Go/No-go with financial justification in 12 hours

Hour 24-36: Security & Compliance Review

Fast-track checklist:

• SOC 2 Type 2 certified? (Y/N)
• Data residency options match requirements? (Y/N)
• GDPR/HIPAA/PCI-DSS compliant (if applicable)? (Y/N)
• Acceptable Use Policy reviewed? (Y/N)
• Data retention policy acceptable? (Y/N)
• Vendor geopolitical risk acceptable? (Y/N)

If all YES: Continue
If any NO: Determine if blocker or manageable risk

Output: Compliance sign-off in 12 hours

Hour 36-48: Pilot Deployment Decision

Final checklist:

pilot_deployment_decision:
  performance:
    meets_threshold: true/false
    improvement_vs_current: "+X%"
  
  cost:
    acceptable_roi: true/false
    payback_months: X
  
  compliance:
    passes_security_review: true/false
  
  integration:
    complexity: low/medium/high
    estimated_effort: X hours
  
  risk:
    vendor_stability: low/medium/high
    geopolitical: low/medium/high
  
  recommendation: ADOPT / PILOT / PASS / WATCH

Hour 48: Decision Made

• ADOPT: Begin production integration
• PILOT: Deploy to 10% traffic, monitor 2 weeks
• PASS: Revisit in 3 months
• WATCH: Monitor vendor progress, re-evaluate next release

---

Real-World Example: Evaluating DeepSeek V3.2 (December 2025)

Company: Healthcare SaaS (500 employees, $50M revenue)

Current: GPT-5.1 for medical documentation summarization

New Model: DeepSeek V3.2 (just announced, IMO/IOI golds, $140B Chinese AI context)

Hour 0-4: Triage

Capability: ✅ Excellent reasoning (relevant)
Deployment: ⚠️ Chinese model, need self-host for HIPAA
Cost: ✅ 10x cheaper than GPT-5
Strategic: ⚠️ Geopolitical risk, but open-source = low lock-in

Decision: EVALUATE (potential massive savings, HIPAA self-host possible)

Hour 4-12: Benchmarking

Test: 100 real medical documentation tasks

Results:

• GPT-5.1: 94% accuracy, 200K avg tokens, $0.60 per task
• DeepSeek V3.2: 96% accuracy, 250K avg tokens, $0.06 per task (API) / $0.01 (self-host)

Performance: ✅ +2% better, 10-60x cheaper

Hour 12-24: Cost-Benefit

Current cost: 1M tasks/year × $0.60 = $600,000/year

DeepSeek API: 1M tasks × $0.06 = $60,000/year (saves $540K)
DeepSeek self-host: 1M tasks × $0.01 + $80K infra = $90,000/year (saves $510K)

Migration cost: 6 weeks × 2 engineers × $150/hr × 40hr/wk = $72,000

ROI (API): $540K / $72K = 7.5
ROI (self-host): $510K / ($72K + $80K) = 3.4

Payback: 2 months (API) or 3.5 months (self-host)

Decision: STRONG ADOPT

Hour 24-36: Compliance

Blocker: HIPAA requires BAA (Business Associate Agreement)

DeepSeek API: ❌ No BAA available (Chinese vendor)
DeepSeek self-host: ✅ Allowed (you control data, no third party)

Decision: Self-host only

Hour 36-48: Pilot Plan

Recommendation: PILOT (self-host)

Plan:

1. Deploy on-premise with 8x H100 GPUs ($240K capex)
2. Test with 10% traffic (100K tasks) for 1 month
3. Validate: accuracy, latency, cost
4. If successful, scale to 100%

Projected outcome:

• Year 1: Save $510K - $240K capex - $72K migration = $198K net savings
• Year 2+: Save $510K/year (capex amortized)
• 3-year NPV: $1.22M

Decision at Hour 48: ✅ APPROVED - Begin pilot

---

Template: Your 7-Dimension Scorecard

Use this for every new model evaluation:

model: "DeepSeek V3.2"  # Example
date_evaluated: "2025-12-15"

dimension_1_capability:
  coding: 82/100
  reasoning: 96/100
  content: 80/100
  data_processing: 85/100
  weighted_score: 86.1/100
  vs_current_model: "+4.3"

dimension_2_cost_performance:
  cost_per_task: "$0.035"
  success_rate: "90%"
  effective_cost: "$0.039"
  vs_current_model: "-92%"  # Savings

dimension_3_deployment:
  cloud_api: true
  self_host: true
  hybrid: true
  flexibility_score: "10/10"

dimension_4_latency:
  api_latency_p95: "27-32s"
  self_host_latency: "12-18s"
  throughput_limit: "2000 req/min (API)"
  acceptable_for_use_case: true

dimension_5_security:
  compliance_us_eu: false
  compliance_china: true
  self_host_compliant: true
  geopolitical_risk: "Medium"
  acceptable: true (with self-host)

dimension_6_ecosystem:
  langchain: "Community support"
  tool_calling: "JSON-based, 92% reliable"
  custom_integration_effort: "4-6 weeks"

dimension_7_future_proofing:
  vendor_velocity: "30-45 days between updates"
  strategic_alignment: "High (reasoning focus)"
  lock_in_risk: "Low (open-source)"

overall_recommendation: "PILOT (self-host)"
confidence: "High"
next_review: "2026-01-15"

---

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Mistake 1: Benchmark Worship

Wrong: “GPT-5.2 scored 100% on AIME → It’s the best model”

Right: “GPT-5.2 scored 100% on AIME, but on OUR medical documentation tasks, it scores 94% vs DeepSeek’s 96%”

Lesson: Test on YOUR data, not generic benchmarks.

Mistake 2: Cost Myopia

Wrong: “DeepSeek is 10x cheaper → Instant switch”

Right: “DeepSeek is 10x cheaper per token, but uses 30% more tokens and has 85% vs 95% success rate, so effective cost is 3.3x cheaper, and quality trade-off may not be worth it for critical tasks”

Lesson: Calculate effective cost per successful outcome, not just API pricing.

Mistake 3: Security Theater

Wrong: “Chinese model = automatic no”

Right: “Chinese model via API = compliance issue. Chinese model self-hosted with data isolation = compliant and potentially best value”

Lesson: Evaluate deployment model, not just provider origin.

Mistake 4: Analysis Paralysis

Wrong: “Let’s spend 6 months evaluating all dimensions perfectly”

Right: “We have 48 hours. Triage in 4 hours, benchmark in 8, decide by hour 48, pilot for 2 weeks, then commit or pass”

Lesson: Speed matters in weekly drop era. Good decision today > perfect decision in 3 months (when model is obsolete).

Mistake 5: Single-Model Betting

Wrong: “We chose Claude 4.5 for everything”

Right: “We route: critical tasks → Claude 4.5, bulk processing → MiniMax M2, reasoning → DeepSeek V3.2, long-context → GLM-4.6”

Lesson: Multi-model orchestration is the only sustainable strategy.

---

Strategic Recommendations by Enterprise Size

Startups (< 50 employees)

Constraint: Limited resources, need speed

Strategy:

1. Start with cloud APIs (fastest time-to-market)
2. Use cheapest viable model (MiniMax M2, DeepSeek for cost-sensitive)
3. Switch frequently (low switching cost, optimize aggressively)
4. Avoid vendor lock-in (prefer models with self-host option)

Recommended stack:

• Primary: MiniMax M2 or GLM-4.6 (cost)
• Backup: Claude 4.5 or GPT-5.2 (quality when needed)
• Strategy: Task-based routing

Mid-Market (50-500 employees)

Constraint: Growing fast, budget matters, compliance emerging

Strategy:

1. Multi-vendor from day 1 (avoid lock-in)
2. Build orchestration layer (abstract model choice)
3. Pilot aggressively (2-week pilot cycles)
4. Optimize by task type (different models for different workloads)

Recommended stack:

• Coding: MiniMax M2 (cost-performance)
• Reasoning: DeepSeek V3.2 or GPT-5.2
• Critical: Claude Opus 4.5 (reliability)
• Orchestration: LangChain or custom

Enterprise (500+ employees)

Constraint: Compliance, security, scale, politics

Strategy:

1. Hybrid deployment (cloud + self-host)
2. Vendor diversity (geopolitical risk mitigation)
3. Formal evaluation process (48-hour protocol)
4. Dedicated AI Orchestration Architects (full-time role)

Recommended stack:

• Tier 1 (critical): GPT-5.2, Claude 4.5, Gemini 3 (compliant cloud APIs)
• Tier 2 (sensitive): Self-hosted DeepSeek or MiniMax (data sovereignty)
• Tier 3 (bulk): Chinese models API (cost optimization)
• Orchestration: Custom platform with compliance layer

---

The Meta-Lesson

This framework will be obsolete in 3-6 months.

Not because it’s wrong, but because:

• New dimensions will emerge (we can’t predict all capabilities of 2026 models)
• Vendors will pivot (DeepSeek might close-source, OpenAI might open-source)
• Geopolitics will shift (regulations, bans, partnerships)
• Technology will leap (what if AGI emerges in Q2 2026?)

The permanent skill isn’t the framework itself.

It’s the ability to:

1. Evaluate rapidly (48 hours, not 6 months)
2. Test empirically (your data, not generic benchmarks)
3. Decide with incomplete information (80% confidence is enough)
4. Adapt continuously (weekly model drops = weekly re-evaluation)
5. Think multi-vendor (never all-in on one model)

This is what AI Orchestration Architects do.

And it’s why they’re worth $150K-$250K+ salaries.

Because in the weekly drop era, the ability to evaluate, decide, and orchestrate is THE competitive advantage.

---

Next in This Series

• Profile: What Does an AI Orchestration Architect Actually Do? (Day in the life, skills, career path)
• Strategy: Building Ethical Guardrails for 30-Hour Autonomous Agents

---

Resources & Tools

Evaluation Frameworks:

• AI Orchestration Research Foundation v2.0
• LangChain Model Comparison Tools
• Hugging Face Leaderboards (with skepticism)

Cost Calculators:

• OpenAI Pricing Calculator
• Anthropic Cost Estimator
• Custom: build your own (template provided above)

Benchmarking Suites:

• Your own production data (most important)
• SWE-bench for coding
• MMLU for general knowledge
• Custom domain benchmarks

---

AI Orchestration Series Navigation

← Previous: Chinese AI Dominance | Next: Orchestration Architect Role →

Complete Series:

1. Series Overview - The AI Orchestration Era
2. The 95% Problem
3. Programmatic Tool Calling
4. Chinese AI Dominance
5. YOU ARE HERE: Evaluation Framework
6. Orchestration Architect Role
7. Ethical Guardrails
8. Human Fluency - Philosophical Foundation

---

This framework is part of our AI Orchestration news division. Updated monthly as the landscape evolves. We’re documenting the transformation in real-time—because by the time traditional analysis is published, it’s already obsolete.