# Unsloth says it cannot reproduce GSQ-RCO's recovery numbers and wants the methods > Source: > Published: 2026-11-02 16:59:54+00:00 # Unsloth says it cannot reproduce GSQ-RCO's recovery numbers and wants the methods **Daniel Han says Unsloth measured GSQ-RCO IQ1_M at 97.24% recovery against a claimed 98.7%, and wants ISTA-DASLab's benchmark protocol published.** By [Ryan Merket](https://runtimewire.com/author/ryan-merket) · Published Primary source: [x.com](https://x.com/danielhanchen/status/2117298764994204009) ## Why it matters Quantized GGUF files are chosen on published recovery scores, so a public gap between ISTA-DASLab's claimed 98.7 to 100% recovery and Unsloth's measured 97.24 to 99.54% decides which files developers download for local DeepSeek and Qwen runs. The dispute also sets a practical standard: Unsloth has posted run counts, context lengths, graders and confidence intervals for its rerun, and the same disclosure from ISTA-DASLab would let any third party settle the numbers instead of picking a side. [Daniel Han (@danielhanchen)](https://x.com/danielhanchen), Unsloth's co-founder, said on November 2nd, 2026 that Unsloth asked the GSQ-RCO team for more detail on how its benchmarks were made, and got told to reproduce the numbers itself. In [the post on X](https://x.com/danielhanchen/status/2117298764994204009), Han reproduced comments he attributed to a now-deleted Reddit account: "Please just try to reproduce our numbers yourself. Even if your hardware doesn't allow you to run DeepSeek, you can still check our benchmarks on QFN and [Qwen3.8-27B](https://runtimewire.com/models/qwen/qwen3.8-27b).… When you purchase through links in our articles, [we may earn a small commission](https://runtimewire.com/affiliate-monetization-standards). This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.