Build the mental model

Training changes model parameters by learning from examples; inference holds those parameters fixed and uses them to produce predictions. Supplying a prompt or retrieved document during inference changes temporary context, not the model’s learned weights.

A reliable beginner model has three boxes: input, transformation, and evidence. The input is what enters the system; the transformation is what the technique actually computes or changes; the evidence is how we learn whether the output works beyond one attractive example. For this topic, the transformation is not magic: During training, examples pass forward through the network, a loss compares predictions with targets, gradients flow backward, and an optimizer updates weights. During inference, only the forward computation is needed, often with autoregressive token generation and a KV cache. Fine-tuning is additional training; RAG and prompting are inference-time techniques.

The boundary matters. Do not confuse a mechanism with an outcome. A mechanism can make a desired outcome more likely while still failing on a particular case. It also does not erase the need for source checks, permissions, or domain judgment. The practical question is therefore not “Does it work?” but “Under which inputs, constraints, and measurements does it work well enough?”

A classifier trains for five epochs on 80,000 labeled tickets and freezes a checkpoint. Every new ticket then runs a forward pass in milliseconds. Adding today’s policy to a prompt helps that request but does not alter the checkpoint.

The worked number is one epoch over 80,000 examples with batch size 100 requires 800 optimizer steps; five epochs require 4,000 steps. State the unit and denominator whenever you report it. A percentage without a denominator can conceal a tiny sample; a latency without a percentile can conceal slow users; a similarity score without a labeled task can conceal irrelevant neighbors. Compare the observed value with a threshold chosen before seeing the final test result.

Now test the tempting shortcut. Suppose the team optimizes only the most visible metric. The result may look better while the system becomes less trustworthy. The reason is concrete: Training is expensive but amortized across many uses and can change persistent behavior. Inference is repeated per request and dominates operating cost at scale. Fine-tuning can improve stable task behavior but is slower to update than retrieval; retrieval gives fresh facts without changing weights. This is why the decision record must include both the intended gain and the tolerated regression. If the tolerated regression is unknown, the change is not ready for a consequential workflow.

• Prefer a measured baseline over a persuasive demo.
• Keep versions, inputs, and thresholds reproducible.
• Separate syntactic success from semantic correctness and authorization.
• Escalate or abstain when evidence falls outside the contract.
• Re-evaluate when data, traffic, models, providers, or user goals change.

These rules turn the topic into an engineering decision rather than a slogan. They also make disagreement productive: another person can challenge the assumptions, rerun the evaluation, and reach a documented conclusion.

Create one near-example and one counterexample. The near-example should differ from the scenario in only one important way; the counterexample should look similar while requiring a different technique. For each, label the input, the transformation that actually occurs, and the evidence you would accept. This exercise prevents the topic name from becoming an all-purpose explanation. If you cannot say what would falsify your mental model, it is still a story rather than a model. End with one sentence beginning “This technique does not guarantee…” and make that limitation observable.