Havenlon/ Execution-Boundary-Qwen36-27B-Q4_K_M:latest

3 Downloads Updated 1 month ago

A Havenlon-focused Qwen3.6 27B model for execution-boundary reasoning, Adversarial Completeness, evidence-based control, and high-risk AI Agent execution.

ollama run Havenlon/Execution-Boundary-Qwen36-27B-Q4_K_M

curl http://localhost:11434/api/chat \
  -d '{
    "model": "Havenlon/Execution-Boundary-Qwen36-27B-Q4_K_M",
    "messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello!"}]
  }'

from ollama import chat

response = chat(
    model='Havenlon/Execution-Boundary-Qwen36-27B-Q4_K_M',
    messages=[{'role': 'user', 'content': 'Hello!'}],
)
print(response.message.content)

import ollama from 'ollama'

const response = await ollama.chat({
  model: 'Havenlon/Execution-Boundary-Qwen36-27B-Q4_K_M',
  messages: [{role: 'user', content: 'Hello!'}],
})
console.log(response.message.content)

Details

Updated 1 month ago

1 month ago

ee7864980feb · 17GB

model

archqwen35

·

parameters26.9B

·

quantizationQ4_K_M

17GB

template

{{ if .System }}<|im_start|>system {{ .System }}<|im_end|> {{ end }}{{ if .Messages }}{{ range .Mess

373B

params

{ "num_ctx": 32768, "repeat_penalty": 1.08, "stop": [ "<|im_end|>" ], "t

98B

Readme

Execution-Boundary-Qwen36-27B-Q4_K_M

A Havenlon-focused Qwen3.6 27B model for reasoning about execution boundaries, Adversarial Completeness, execution control, evidence chains, and high-risk automated systems.

Focus

Execution Boundary reasoning
Execution Control
Adversarial Completeness
Intent-to-Execution consistency
Policy and governance separation
Independent veto
Evidence-based verification
Hardware-backed control
AI Agent execution risk
Fail-Secure architecture

Run

ollama run Havenlon/Execution-Boundary-Qwen36-27B-Q4_K_M

Quantization

Q4_K_M

Design Perspective

Havenlon assumes that individual components may fail, be misconfigured, become compromised, or operate on incomplete information.

The goal is not to assume that every component remains trustworthy.

The goal is to prevent local failure from automatically becoming catastrophic execution.

This leads to a core architectural principle:

No single software component should be able to independently convert its own decision into irreversible real-world execution.

Execution therefore remains subject to independent validation and veto at the final boundary.

# Execution-Boundary-Qwen36-27B-Q4_K_M

A Havenlon-focused Qwen3.6 27B model for reasoning about execution boundaries, Adversarial Completeness, execution control, evidence chains, and high-risk automated systems.

## Focus

- Execution Boundary reasoning
- Execution Control
- Adversarial Completeness
- Intent-to-Execution consistency
- Policy and governance separation
- Independent veto
- Evidence-based verification
- Hardware-backed control
- AI Agent execution risk
- Fail-Secure architecture

## Run

```bash
ollama run Havenlon/Execution-Boundary-Qwen36-27B-Q4_K_M
```

## Quantization

Q4_K_M

## Design Perspective

Havenlon assumes that individual components may fail, be misconfigured, become compromised, or operate on incomplete information.

The goal is not to assume that every component remains trustworthy.

The goal is to prevent local failure from automatically becoming catastrophic execution.

This leads to a core architectural principle:

> No single software component should be able to independently convert its own decision into irreversible real-world execution.

Execution therefore remains subject to independent validation and veto at the final boundary.

Paste, drop or click to upload images (.png, .jpeg, .jpg, .svg, .gif)