Verify our claims yourself.

The verification stack.

Three independent layers, each answering a different question. The first two ship in the public package; the third is on the roadmap as a paid service. If a claim doesn't survive all three, we don't ship it as a customer-facing number.

Reproduce a published row in 3 commands

Today (shape contract):

# 1. install
pip install ultracompress

# 2. pull a published artifact
hf download SipsaLabs/qwen3-1.7b-base-uc-v3-bpw5 --local-dir ./pack

# 3. verify pack structure + SHA-256 download integrity
uc verify ./pack
# → VERIFY: PASS — structure + SHA-256 download integrity confirmed.
#   (public `uc verify` checks the pack is well-formed and the bytes you
#    downloaded match the published SHA-256 manifest. It does NOT run the
#    model or reproduce perplexity — that is the quality contract below.)

Quality contract (PPL reproduction — available to evaluators on request, not in the public CLI):

# 4. reproduce the published PPL ratio on your own hardware (GPU)
#    Runs via the PPL reproduction harness we share with evaluators —
#    it pulls the bf16 baseline, runs the held-out eval, and compares.
# → published: 1.00401×  measured: 1.0041×  match: PASS

Public uc verify covers the shape contract only (structure + SHA-256 download integrity). Headline PPL ratios are re-derivable with the PPL reproduction harness, which we share with evaluators on request along with full eval provenance. We don't ship round numbers without source data behind them.

Reproducible, not cherry-picked.

Most projects publish the wins and ask you to trust them. We publish only numbers you can regenerate yourself: every figure is independently reproducible and SHA-256-verifiable, so the published result and the result on your own machine are the same result.

The README's "What doesn't work yet" section applies the same honesty to capabilities a reader might assume work because the rest of the package does. Both surfaces stay fresh.

What customers should ask us.

If you're evaluating a 5-bit near-lossless codec for production, these are the right questions to bring to the call. Our answers are the same in writing as they are on a sales call.

• "Can I reproduce your headline number on my own hardware?"

  Yes. The shape contract reproduces today via the public uc verify (structure + SHA-256 download integrity). The quality contract (PPL ratio against the bf16 baseline pulled from HuggingFace) reproduces via a PPL reproduction harness we share with evaluators on request. Same JSON schema as our published numbers.

  / self-serve · no Sipsa-side claims to take on faith

• "Is there an independent third-party audit?"

  Coming as a productized service in Q3 2026 as part of the Compression-as-a-Service catalog. Until then: every published number is self-reproducible by the verification stack above, and full per-architecture eval provenance is available to any external auditor on request.

  / scoped on the public roadmap · not a marketing future-tense

• "What about regulatory-grade verification (SR 11-7, FDA, defense)?"

  The on-prem MSA tier includes audit-trail logs, reproducibility manifests, and the reproducible reconstruction contract that maps onto SR 11-7 model validation, FDA-regulated healthcare AI dev/deploy equivalence, and defense deploy-bit-exactness. See /enterprise for the compliance architecture and the three engagement tiers.

  / same SHA-256 contract, formalised inside your security boundary

• "What if the architecture I care about isn't in your verified matrix?"

  That's the Phase 0 POC. Bring a model, we deliver a UC pack inside 5 business days, and you self-verify it with uc verify + benchmark it with the PPL reproduction harness against your existing AWQ/GPTQ build on your hardware. If we don't materially help, you keep the diagnostic and we don't push Phase 1.

  / contact: founder@sipsalabs.com

For VCs specifically.

We know the verifier-quality gap is the #1 trust objection from technical diligence. Here's the timeline to close it — written in the present and near-future tense, not the aspirational quarter-plus-two.