The first entry is always the pin's source. Overall confidence is a weighted average of how firmly each reference supports the start and end times used above; a reference counts half as much for every 180 days older than the newest.
Meta AI Research's post 'Introducing Muse Spark 1.1' is dated July 9, 2026 and begins 'Today, we're excited to introduce Muse Spark 1.1'; TechCrunch[5] reported the launch the same day, while OpenRouter's[2] 16 July listing is when the router added it.
Router listing 'Meta[1]: Muse Spark 1.1': created 2026-07-16, 1,048,576-token context, text, image, video and file input, $1.25 per 1 million input tokens, $4.25 per 1 million output tokens and $0.15 per 1 million cached input.
Independent comparison: coding index 71.3 against 68.8 for GLM-5.2 and 71.4 for GPT-5.6 Luna, 94M output tokens against 141M for GLM-5.2, $0.26 per task against $0.37, and a hallucination rate down from 73% to 38% because the model declines to answer more often.[1]
Independent benchmarks: 51 on the Intelligence Index (up 8 from Muse Spark 1.0's 43), Coding Index 59 to 71, GDPval-AA v2 1,144 to 1,376 Elo, hallucination rate 73% to 38%, about $0.26 per index task, 94M output tokens, 1M context up from 262k, $1.25 and $4.25 per 1 million tokens, about 114 tokens per second.[1]
Same-day report by Lucas Ropek: Meta[1] released the model publicly on Thursday 9 July for agentic coding, priced at $1.25 and $4.25 per 1 million tokens in line with Claude Haiku 4.5 and GPT-5.6 Luna, with Zuckerberg calling it 'a strong agentic and coding model at a very low price' while Meta trails Anthropic and OpenAI.
Something missing or wrong? Say it in your own words: a link that backs this pin up, a different start or end date and why, or a fact it lacks or gets wrong. The AI checks it against this pin's sources, searches for better ones, and adds any page that backs you up. The pin's own sources still count most. A picture that shows something else, or shows it badly, is looked at too, and moved down or replaced.