Loading the catalogue…
Loading the catalogue…
TypeSafe’s text-input decision model returns labels, scores, and yes/no probabilities through JSON rather than generated prose.
Overview. Jev is TypeSafe’s text-input model for typed decisions rather than generated prose. It returns decisions and probabilities through JSON, using reinforcement-learning post-training aimed at calibrated decisions. Developers can use it when an application needs a label, numeric score, or yes/no probability instead of a conversational answer.
Key strengths. Jev’s documented interface provides Choice, Score, and Noul response types for bounded decision tasks. These outputs let applications consume decisions and associated probabilities without parsing free-form prose. The available research contains no benchmark results establishing comparative accuracy or calibration performance.
When to use it. Use Jev for text classification when your application needs a selected label and probabilities over the available choices. Use its Score or Noul response types when a workflow needs a numeric assessment or yes/no probability. Integrate through TypeSafe’s System One API rather than assuming a chat-completions interface.
Limitations. The combined request budget is 64,000 tokens, but the state plus the longest individual question must fit within 32,000 tokens. Jev does not generate prose or visible reasoning traces and does not accept image, audio, or video inputs; English is its primary training language. The jev-latest alias can move between releases, so it should not be treated as a permanently pinned version.
Sovereignty note. TypeSafe AI, Inc. is a US company and serves Jev only from the United States, so requests are exposed to the US CLOUD Act. TypeSafe states that customer requests and responses are not used for training. Jev is not a Sovereign model, and a workspace with an EU-only or no-CLOUD-Act policy will not reach it.
| Inference Provider | Sovereignty | Runs in | Price | Status | Pin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L0 | €0.04 per 1M input tokensFree per 1M output tokens | Online |
15 use cases classified by the curator. The note says why.
Basic text classification is a low-bar task achievable by most general LLMs at this context size, absent counter-evidence.
64K context is sufficient for single-document Q&A workloads, though the model is still in draft status with no capability or benchmark disclosures.
General-purpose text generation at 64K context covers typical email-drafting workloads without needing long-context or tool support.
64K context accommodates long-form content generation, though the model's draft status and missing benchmarks cap confidence at acceptable.
64K context can hold most meeting transcripts for summarisation; lack of published benchmarks limits confidence to acceptable rather than strong.
Text-only context-window task well within the 64K limit; no evidence of structured-output or tool features needed here.
No tool-calling or code-execution capability flagged; agentic coding workflows need confirmed tool integration this model card lacks.
No tool-use or browsing capability is documented; agentic browser control cannot be assumed without explicit support.
No vision/OCR capability documented — this is a text-only profile as far as published capabilities show.
Capabilities list is empty — no function-calling support is confirmed, which is a hard requirement for this use case.
No vision capability is flagged on the model card, ruling out image understanding tasks.
No tool-calling capability is flagged on this model card, making it unsuitable for orchestration workflows requiring reliable function invocation.
Sourced numbers, not our own evaluations. Percentiles are against the decision models on Stav.
No benchmark source yet
curl https://api.stav.ai/v1/decisions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $STAV_API_KEY" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"model": "typesafe/jev",
"state": {"tool": "delete_file", "path": "/etc/passwd"},
"questions": {"safe": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Is this tool call safe to run?"}}}'→ X-Stav-Request-Id · X-Stav-Model · X-Stav-Provider → X-Stav-Sovereignty-Level — the rung the request was served at