Sadly no. I'd like to keep it untainted, but also because the tables involved are straight from my work, which is very much not OSS. I can however try to parap

Sadly no. I'd like to keep it untainted, but also because the tables involved are straight from my work, which is very much not OSS. I can however try to paraphrase it so you get the gist of it. The question asks to provide a SQL statement to update rows in table A based on related tables B and C, where table B is mentioned explicitly and C is implicit through the foreign keys provided in the context. The key point all previous models I've tested has missed, is that the rows in A are many-to-one with B, and so the update should take this into account. This is implicit from the foreign key context and not mentioned directly in the question. Think distributing pizza slices between a group of friends. All previous models has completely missed this part and just given each friend the whole pizza. GPT-OSS correctly identified this issue and flagged it in the response, but also included a sensible assumption of evenly dividing the pizza. I should note some of the previous models also missed the implicit connection to table C, and thus completely failed to do something sensible. But at least several of them figured this out. Of course I forgot to write that part down so can't say offhand which did what. As for the code, for example I've coded a Y combinator in Delphi, using intentionally terse non-descriptive names, and asked the models to explain how the code works and what it does. Most ~7B models and larger of the past year or so have managed to explain it fairly well. However GPT-OSS was much more thorough and provider a much better explanation, showing a significantly better "understanding" of the code. It was also the first model smaller than LLama 3 70B that I've tried that correctly identified it as a Y combinator.