GPT-6 Astra

OpenAI's model guide describes GPT-6 Astra for complex coding, app building, research, reasoning and computer-use tasks that require judgment.^[1] This is the provider's selection guidance. It does not independently establish that the model wins every task or guarantees a successful outcome.

GPT names a model family. Astra names a particular model, while ChatGPT Work is an environment that combines models with available resources and tools.^[2] Access to a source or an action depends on that environment's permissions, not solely on model capability. Hyphen variants in the model name are spelling variants, not separate releases.

Compare accuracy, completed deliverables, supporting evidence, total time and cost, and adherence to permitted actions. Use the same source versions and acceptance criteria across candidates. Record retries and review time rather than comparing only the length or fluency of the first response. Availability can depend on the account and workspace.^[1]

This is hypothetical, not a model experiment or legal advice. Two specification documents move a requirement to a different section. A useful comparison distinguishes renumbering from a substantive change and preserves exceptions. Attach the document version and supporting location to each claimed difference so a reviewer can verify it.

Include questions that the material cannot answer and cases with conflicting sources. Do not infer unpublished benchmark scores, prices or context limits from a model name. Check current official availability. Model Card and Safety Evaluation provide background for reading evaluation conditions and limitations.

OpenAI's model guide ↗ describes Astra's intended task profile.^[1] Fix source material, output format, allowed tools and correct supporting evidence before comparing models or settings. If those conditions change, the cause of a different result becomes ambiguous.

For document comparisons, assess changed requirements and source locations; for code, reproduced errors and execution outcomes; for research, agreement between claims and sources. Evaluation conditions and test scope provide relevant documentation concepts. The Work guide ↗ describes a tool-and-file environment, which is distinct from the model.^[2]

This is hypothetical, not a model evaluation. Specification v1 permits CSV output; v2 permits CSV or JSON. Another requirement only moves from section four to five. A correct comparison separates the added output option from renumbering. Saying that output changed to JSON incorrectly omits retained CSV support.

Review substantive differences, preserved exceptions, source locations and unresolved points. A search phrase with law appended to a model name is not evidence of a separate legal product. Legal documents require their own review of original text, date and jurisdiction; this specification example is not legal advice.

Hypothetical configuration A completes eight of ten tasks in 40 minutes total: five minutes per completed task. B completes nine in 54 minutes: six minutes per completion. B completes more tasks but takes longer per completed task. Include the importance of failures and human review time. These figures are not Astra benchmarks.

Compare tool execution, retries and review alongside model charges. Inference cost and latency and throughput are distinct measurements. Do not fill unpublished prices, context limits or scores with guesses.

Record model identifiers, settings, source versions, questions, tools and outcomes. Repeat under comparable conditions and categorize failures rather than relying on one successful response. For long material, distinguish fitting inside the context window from actually using the necessary evidence. Tool permissions and final-state verification separate model capability from system completion.