Credibility
Publishable comparisons need traceable evaluation: what was fit, what was held out, what metric moved, and what stayed internal by design.
GNSS clock comparison · holdout discipline · results you can defend
Your clocks disagree. Tare makes that disagreement defensible.
Long-baseline timing work lives or dies on whether two analysis centers’ clocks can be compared fairly. Tare is proprietary transformation and evaluation-as-a-service—calibrated on training windows, scored on held-out days you did not use to calibrate, returning post-processed outputs plus RMS-class summaries—not a method paper, not a live feed.
Published holdout statistics (IGS-class panels, tested configurations): low-30s ns RMS before → 17–22 ns after (~45% reduction). Whether that repeats is what your pilot measures—not something we assume upfront.
Evaluation engagement: before/after statistics are the deliverable. Not a live timing product, operational service, or performance guarantee.
ORBIT → AC → EVAL
illustrative
Artwork: constellation → analysis-center clocks → holdout evaluation (not live data)
01 · Why this matters
The number is not the hard part. The argument is.
Labs, product teams, and review panels do not fail on having clocks—they fail on being unable to show that the comparison was fair after the fact. A biased window, a leaky train/test split, or an undisclosed fit can invalidate months of work without anyone noticing until review day.
WITHOUT HOLDOUT
WITH TARE
Operations
Wrong timing bleeds into product specs, campaign planning, and legal traceability. Fixing it late is expensive; proving it early is cheaper.
Control
You should not have to reverse-engineer someone else’s method to use post-processed clocks. Tare ships outputs and summaries; the transformation stays in the evaluation envelope.
Stakes first. Spreadsheets second.
Read how we define fair before you read how far RMS moved.
02 · What Tare is
Proprietary transformation + evaluation-as-a-service.
Tare is a holdout-validated evaluation service for multi-AC GNSS clock comparison. You provide agreed inputs (comparison series, windows, product definitions). We apply a proprietary off-line transformation and return post-processed series and RMS-class statistics computed the same way before and after—so any movement on agreed metrics is measurable under the evaluation frame, not asserted as a universal gain.
| Category | Evaluation-as-a-service on timing comparison data |
|---|---|
| Transformation | Proprietary; applied off-line; method not disclosed |
| Domain today | Long-baseline GNSS clock comparison (IGS-class products, agreed baselines) |
| Deliverable | Post-processed series + before/after statistics + written evaluation pack |
Other timing domains may follow; this pilot envelope is GNSS clock-comparison only. Program charter: Pilot overview. Procurement (fees, seats, timeline): Pilot terms · FAQ.
Accepted inputs: multi-AC clock-comparison series and agreed IGS-class clock products. Raw receiver logs and streaming feeds are not accepted unless agreed in writing.
STEP 01
You define the panel
AC products, baselines, train/holdout windows, comparison metric.
STEP 02
We calibrate on train only
Transformation is calibrated inside the pilot envelope—not on the days you will test.
STEP 03
We score on holdout
RMS (and agreed summaries) on days your team did not use to calibrate.
STEP 04
You receive outputs
Post-processed series + evaluation report. Method remains confidential.
train ∩ test = ∅ · ship outputs, not recipes · typical ≠ universal until your pilot runs
WINDOW DISCIPLINE
train ∩ holdout = ∅
The evaluation contract is the split. If we calibrate on holdout, the number is not yours anymore.
03 · Why you would want this
Less arguing about whose clock is wrong. More signing off a number you can defend.
+
A comparison you can defend
Holdout discipline is the evaluation contract—not a footnote in someone else’s README.
+
Observed RMS movement (panel-dependent)
In published IGS-class holdout runs, reductions on the order of ~45% appear; remainder commonly 17–22 ns—not zero, not guaranteed on your data.
+
No method archaeology
You integrate deliverables; you do not rebuild their entire research stack.
+
Evidence you can open
Pinned DOY ranges, null battery, strict-window examples—for reviewers who read footnotes.
+
Pilot-shaped risk
Structured evaluation before a bigger commitment—not a perpetual SaaS gamble.
04 · Where corrected time lands
One holdout spine. Different clocks on the line.
Tare is not “an HFT product” or “a telecom product.” It is defensible GNSS clock comparison that many downstream desks, SLAs, and review panels need to trust. The verticals below are who feels the residual first—not separate miracle claims.
Same evaluation deliverable today: train/holdout post-processing, post-processed outputs, RMS-class summaries. Maturity tags describe roadmap—not separate performance claims.
Pilot today
TareHFT · software path
Capital markets & sync desks
Co-lo timing and event ordering live on whose clock you trust.
When residual noise is tens of nanoseconds, sequence calls and latency budgets amplify small disagreements. Tare gives you a holdout-defensible comparison before you bet desk architecture on it. Desk visuals here are illustrative—not field claims.
I/O shape: recorded CLK / comparison panels → corrected series + holdout RMS (batch pilot; streaming envelope in TareHFT phase 2).
Pilot today
Telecom & network sync
5G and backbone sync need traceable time, not heroic holdover stories.
Carriers and timing-as-a-service vendors defend SLAs with comparison data across products and windows. Tare is how you show the panel was scored fairly—before it becomes a field incident.
Same pilot envelope: AC clock products, agreed baselines, holdout report you can attach to a review packet.
Pilot today
Academic track
Labs, NMIs & product integrators
Publishable comparisons and shippable clock specs share one bar: fair evaluation.
National labs and GNSS timing vendors need reviewers to see what was fit, what was held out, and what moved—without handing over the correction recipe. Academic pilots use the same discipline at a different fee tier.
Evidence room + technical note for footnotes; pilot for your panel.
Stakes vary. The split does not.
Pick your lane above; see what else we’re building or jump to adoption.
05 · How you adopt it
Hard science. Practical envelope.
Implementation is intentionally boring: files in, evaluated outputs out. No rip-and-replace of your entire stack on day one.
1
Apply / scope the pilot
Tell us your AC products, baselines, and what “fair comparison” means for your program. We align on metrics and windows before touching data.
2
Secure data handoff
Sneakernet/USB or agreed transfer—your security rules lead. We do not need your method; we need the comparison inputs you already use.
3
Train / holdout run
We fit on train, report on holdout, document nulls and pinned exhibits. You get post-processed outputs + summaries.
4
Decide on merit
If holdout holds on your panel, expand. If not, you still have a documented evaluation—not a marketing slide.
Pilot procurement
90-day evaluation · May–July 2026 cohort · $45k academic / $195k commercial · invite-only · ≤10 concurrent seats.
06 · Proof (not promises)
The excitement is real. The numbers are qualified.
Orientation numbers below come from published IGS-class holdout runs—not a forecast for your panel. Pinned runs and null tests in the evidence room are what survive review.
Published vs pilot: public exhibits use fixed IGS-class panels and the same train/holdout frame as pilot engagements. They show what we observed on those panels; your pilot asks whether similar movement appears on yours—representative of evaluation discipline and domain, not a guaranteed effect size.
RMS · BEFORE / AFTER · HOLDOUT WINDOW
animated · illustrative
Illustrative trace — shape only; pinned DOY tables live in Evidence
RMS_before · typical
low 30s
ns · window-dependent
RMS_after · holdout
17–22
ns · not remainder = 0
Δ_RMS · published runs
~45%
median-ish in tested configs · panel-dependent
Pinned strict-window example
80.8%
Labeled reduction on DOY 2024-250–279 (IGS/CODE/ESA context in technical note). One published exhibit—not a claim that every window behaves identically.
EVIDENCE · PINNED_DOYNull battery
holdout ≠ luck
Time-shift and synthetic controls documented in the evidence room. If the effect were trivial leakage, you would see it here.
EVIDENCE · NULLSFootnotes welcome.
Console layout, DOY tables, and scope limits. Full definitions in the technical note.
07 · What we’re building
Multiple Tare programs. One timing bench.
The pilot is the engagement you can contract today. The family below shares holdout culture and Banlys timing hardware heritage—each line has its own maturity and evidence bar.
North star: a sealed corrector at the timing boundary (live or near-live I/O, method inside the box)—only after holdout proof on your panel and a streaming latency envelope, not before.
Pilot today
Tare Program
Holdout-validated GNSS clock-comparison post-processing: corrected outputs, RMS-class summaries, evidence room. The 90-day pilot track is the commercial and academic entry point.
Software path
Phase 2 queued
TareHFT
Batch validation closed on recorded CLK panels (harness path). Next: streaming envelope, per-epoch latency shape, CGGTTS I/O spec for desk integration.
R&D
TareGEO
Does corrected timing show up in PPP / position? Baseline vs IGS20 runs exist; optional step is correction inside the PPP chain. Separate from core clock-comparison proof tables.
Live desk demo
TareWatch
Witness on a Tare-corrected reference vs independent incoming GNSS stream—alarm when paths diverge long enough (spoof / anomaly). Synthetic demo on site; live two-receiver desk kit validated. Streaming reference at customer sites is a later milestone.
08 · Who runs it
Built by Banlys.
Tare Program is operated by Banlys, LLC—timing hardware, precision tools, and holdout-validated clock-comparison evaluation from the same shop.