Loading the catalogue…
Loading the catalogue…
Proprietary text-input model from TypeSafe AI that returns typed decisions rather than generated text. This alias currently points to jev-1.14.0.
Overview. Jev is a proprietary text-input model from TypeSafe AI, trained with RLCD to return calibrated decisions. Each request returns typed answers keyed by question name, such as a choice with probabilities, a score, a noul probability, or box coordinates, rather than generated text. The typesafe/jev-preview slug is an alias that currently points to jev-1.14.0, the same release as jev-latest.
Key strengths. The vendor's model documentation reviewed for this model contains no benchmark results, so this section makes no quality claim. The vendor documents a structured interface: choice and score answers include probabilities, and the default per-request context window is 64k tokens. English is the primary training language, where the vendor reports accuracy is best.
When to use it. Use Jev when your application needs a structured decision over text, such as selecting one option from a fixed set of choices or returning a score against a defined legend. It suits pipelines that parse answers programmatically and do not need prose. Avoid it for chat, drafted replies, code generation, or any task where a written explanation is the expected output.
Limitations. Jev is not a chat or completions model, and it does not write replies, produce code, or explain its reasoning. The default context is 64k tokens per request and 32k per question, and a 262k window is available only when the vendor's long-context header is sent. Parameter count, architecture, training cutoff, and output limits are not published, and because the alias moves with new releases, pin jev-1.14.0 when results must be reproducible.
Sovereignty note. TypeSafe AI is recorded with a United States country of record, and its creator record flags CLOUD Act exposure, so this model should not be presented as Sovereign. The vendor states that customer requests and responses are not used for training, and that the same weights serve every account. Data residency for the endpoint has not been verified, so no residency claim is made.
| Inference Provider | Sovereignty | Runs in | Price | Status | Pin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L0 | €0.04 per 1M input tokensFree per 1M output tokens | Online |
16 use cases classified by the curator. The note says why.
Short description cites calibrated probability outputs over text input, which aligns with classification workflows, but no benchmarks or parameter count are published to verify accuracy.
A 64,000-token context window accommodates most single documents, but answer quality is unbenchmarked and the model is not designed as a generative QA system per its description.
Vision is listed as a capability, but the short description refers only to text input, and no vision benchmarks are published, so this fit depends on confirming image support.
Typed-decision output over text is a plausible match for multi-label tagging, but tagging quality is unverified and the model is still in preview.
Calibrated probabilities over text suit routing decisions that need a confidence score, though the absence of published evaluations limits confidence in this call.
Vision capability is listed, but there is no published evidence of chart-parsing accuracy, and the model is positioned as a text decision model.
The family is described as a chat model, but the curated description emphasises typed decisions, and no conversational quality evidence is published; compliance should also review TypeSafe AI's US jurisdiction for customer data.
Vision is listed, but no OCR benchmarks are published, and dedicated OCR pipelines are the more established option for this task.
Function calling is not listed among the model's capabilities, so this use case lacks supporting signal.
The curated description positions the model as a typed-decision system rather than a generative writer, and no long-form generation evidence is available.
Redaction is a sensitive workload, and TypeSafe AI has US CLOUD Act exposure with no published accuracy metrics, so the risk outweighs any evidence of fit.
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-preview",
"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