That would be a laudable goal, but I feel like it's contradicted by the text:

> Even on a low-quality image, GPT‑5.2 identifies the main regions and places boxes that roughly match the true locations of each component

I would not consider it to have "identified the main regions" or to have "roughly matched the true locations" when ~1/3 of the boxes have incorrect labels. The remark "even on a low-quality image" is not helping either.

Edit: credit where credit is due, the recently-added disclaimer is nice:

> Both models make clear mistakes, but GPT‑5.2 shows better comprehension of the image.