Open the demo, open your browser's network tab, and type an address. You'll watch it resolve to a rooftop coordinate — 1600 Pennsylvania Ave lands on the actual building, within about ten metres — and then you'll notice what's missing from the network tab: a request carrying your address. There isn't one. The parser ran in the page. The gazetteer it resolved against is a file on a CDN that the page read a few kilobytes at a time. The query never left your machine.

That's the pitch, and it's worth being clear about why it's unusual, because the three things the rest of the market hands you each ask you to give something up.

Every geocoder turns an address into a coordinate. Almost none of them will tell you where that coordinate came from. You get a latitude, a longitude, and a vague confidence enum, and when it's wrong you have no thread to pull — no way to know whether the point came from a federal data release, a county GIS office, or a straight line drawn down the middle of a street. Mailwoman keeps the source on every point. Here's New York, every dot colored by the open dataset it came from.

Three public datasets land on your desk. The national provider registry — NPPES, every NPI in the country. A federal telecom-funding file from the FCC's Rural Health Care program, one slice of the Universal Service Fund. A state list of licensed nursing facilities from Texas HHSC. You want to know which records describe the same provider, and not one of the three shares an identifier with the other two. The NPI is internal to NPPES. The funding file keys on its own SPIN. The state list has its own facility ID. There's no crosswalk, because nobody ever built one.

So you do what everyone does: you start a spreadsheet, you sort by name, and you give up around row 400.

You have a pile of records and no key to join them on. A clinic shows up in the federal provider registry, again in a state licensing export, a third time in a funding-program spreadsheet somebody keyed by hand. None of those files share an identifier. The provider number is internal to one publisher, the facility ID to another. So the join you actually want — which of these are the same place — isn't a join at all. It's a judgment call, repeated a few million times.

The market hands you two tools for this, and each one solves a different half of the problem. Neither one finishes.

We spend a lot of energy distrusting numbers that look too good. A validation score that jumps, an accuracy that rounds up suspiciously close to 100 — we've been burned by those, so we poke at them. The number that says you failed gets a free pass. Of course it's right; who lies to make themselves look bad?

Our evals did, three times this week. One of them nearly talked us out of a model we should ship. One invented a coverage problem we don't have. And one had us writing "3.3 km" into a model card for a geocoder that puts most addresses within a hundred meters. Each time the fix was the same, and embarrassingly cheap: stop reading the summary row and pull the actual records the summary is averaging over.

Here's a number that should make you nervous: our validation macro-F1 climbed from 0.71 to 0.73 on a retrain we were ready to ship. Every instinct says that's a win. The aggregate went up; the model is better; cut the release.

It wasn't, and it took three probes to prove it. The same model that scored higher on the average had gotten worse at the most basic address there is — a town and a state. This is the story of how the average lied to us, and how we caught it.

Mailwoman ships two address parsers in the same box.

The first, which we call v0, is our TypeScript port of the Pelias parser — a rules engine: tokenize, classify each token against dictionaries and patterns, solve for the most plausible arrangement under a pile of hand-written constraints. It is fast, deterministic, and the product of years of accumulated postal wisdom. It is also the thing we set out to beat.

The second is the neural classifier — a sequence labeler trained on a BIO-tagged corpus, the one this blog has spent most of its life arguing with.

So: a year in, did the neural net actually beat the rules parser? The answer is mostly a tie, until the address gets weird — and the weird is where it gets interesting.

Our failure taxonomy finally has a line at the very top: of everything wrong with the parser, boundary instability is the one worth fixing first. So we spent a night building the training data to fix it. And then we didn't retrain. Three separate gates each caught a step that looked completely reasonable and was wrong underneath, and that's the story worth telling, more than the shard ever was. Those gates are the only reason you can move fast on your worst weakness without shipping a fix that looks great on the headline and rots underneath.

Here are two addresses. Tell me if they're the same place.

123 Main Street, Suite 400, Springfield IL 62704
123 Main St #400, Springfield, Illinois

Easy — yes. Now these two:

Jyllandsgade 15, 9000 Aalborg
Jyllandsgade 75, 9000 Aalborg

Also easy — no. They're 650 metres apart.

Now imagine a string-similarity matcher looking at those same four lines. The first pair, the same place, scores low: different punctuation, "Street" vs "St", a reordered unit. The second pair, different places, scores 0.96 — one character apart. The tool you'd reach for gets both backwards. This isn't a tuning problem you can threshold your way out of. It's the wrong coordinate system.

We turned the demo into a real geocoder — type an address, get a rooftop coordinate, all in your browser, no server. The last touch was the one that makes a search box feel alive: autocomplete, so the city finishes itself while you type. We already had the autocomplete. We'd shipped it as a command-line tool days earlier, watched it rank San Francisco above San Diego, and called it done. So we dropped the same function into the box, typed New Yor, and it suggested Denver.

The questions that opened up: why does a function that nails San choke on New Yor? What's the difference between completing a word and completing the word a person is in the middle of typing? And how does an autocomplete that knows ten thousand cities fail to finish one of them?