<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>Juraj (npub1m2…lr8p9)</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1m2mvvpjugwdehtaskrcl7ksvdqnnhnjur9v6g9v266nss504q7mqvlr8p9</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>But at the end of the day, not really:&#xA;&#xA;&#34;Tinfoil itself acknowledges it hasn&#39;t yet achieved fully reproducible builds, meaning there remains a gap between &#34;attested recipe/measurement&#34; and &#34;independently reproducible binary&#34; not unlike Venice&#39;s issue #4, just mitigated by an external, harder-to-tamper log&#34;&#xA;&#xA;I would say unless you can verify binary, you are taking their word for it. Encrypting tool calls is big usability win though.&#xA;&#xA;And also model selection is not very good on Tinfoil/PPQ (not even the newer Qwen3.6 models). GLM-5.2 is the only one.</html></oembed>