Measure Before You Train: Typed Decision Models vs. a Classical Baseline vs. a Generative LLM for Routing a Personal Multilingual Inbox

Personal email agents decide, for every message, what it is, whether it is urgent, whether to draft a reply, create a task, or ignore it. Their error rate is rarely measured: the stored labels were written by the system itself. We present Foyer, a self-hosted personal inbox agent in daily use, and a measurement protocol (stratified sampling, frozen snapshots, thread-grouped splits, pre-registered hypotheses, human labels in the agent's review loop) that yields ground truth before any training. On 739 real Italian/English emails labelled by the owner (231 unbiased, 500 adversarially sampled), we compare nine systems under thread-grouped cross-validation: the production keyword rules, a TF-IDF + logistic-regression baseline, local typed decision models (Tev1, Nimble), a hosted decision model (Nimble v4-max), and hosted generative LLMs (Qwen2.5-7B, Gemma 4 26B/31B). Four results. The production rules score 28% on message type against a 58% majority class: the field shown most prominently carried no information. With ~200 labels, logistic regression has the highest accuracy on every field (type 0.79, urgency 0.74, needs-reply 0.83, is-noise 0.90), though it never predicts the two rarest classes and is statistically tied with Gemma 4 on type; few-shot prompting does not close the gap. The sender's relationship (client, supplier, service) is recovered from other emails of the same contact with 98.6% accuracy where the contact has been seen, and is not inferable from a single message by any model: it belongs in the contact graph, not the prompt. Finally, accuracy is not the product metric: composed into actions, the most accurate system most often ignores emails needing action (18% vs 4% for the best LLM); a cost-chosen threshold on its noise probability halves that rate and makes it the cheapest system.