[Flotapponnier]

bench 284 called them frontier models without saying frontier of when

Florent's instinct was right and it is worse than it looked. The field was
enrolled on 2025-12-24 and 2026-01-14 and has not been refreshed since:

grok 4 vision, gemini 3 pro vision      2025-12-24
sonnet 4.5 vision, gpt-5.2 vision       2025-12-24
gpt-5.2 chart, opus 4.5 chart           2026-01-14
grok 4 chart, gemini 3 pro chart        2026-01-14

266 days. The page said "eight frontier models" with no date on it, which is a
claim about the frontier at enrolment presented as a claim about now. Opus 4.5
and Sonnet 4.5 are a generation behind the current Claude family.

We cannot fix it by widening the field. The arena is allowlistOnly with
maxParticipants 8, so Recall picks the roster and we measure what it runs.
What we can do is date the claim, which is what this does.

Shipped

trading_agent_registered_timestamp_seconds per agent, and
trading_agent_roster_age_days at arena level: days since the MOST RECENT
enrolment, so one agent added tomorrow would correctly read as a refreshed
roster rather than being hidden behind the oldest date.

The hub states it above the table, from the live figure, and only when the
gap is wide enough to matter. The spec's seo_intro, methodology and the "which
model is best" FAQ all carry it now.

The spec was at 16 metric panels of a maximum 17, so rather than sit at the
ceiling this drops the trades_total panel, which was data-only, backed no
column, and is the one a reader would miss least. The metric stays in the
harness and remains queryable in Prometheus.

The check that keeps the copy honest

Plugin R11 reads each agent's enrolment date from a fresh upstream walk and
WARNS when the roster is newer than the copy claims, naming the four places
that then have to move. Same shape as R8, which warns if a pair of agents ever
starts to separate. Without it the dated sentence would silently become false
the day Recall enrols someone, because this bench scores rounds and would
otherwise never look at the roster.

Something I got wrong and corrected

While checking whether Recall had newer models registered anywhere, I sampled
300 agents and was about to report that there were none. The registry holds
15,485. A 2 % sample supports no such claim, and I only found out because the
API rate-limited me into reading the pagination total. The finding above rests
only on the eight agents' own records, which are verified.