diff --git a/explainers/quality-levels.md b/explainers/quality-levels.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9ba2a2b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/explainers/quality-levels.md
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+# Web Speech API Proposal: On-Device Speech Recognition Quality Levels
+
+**Author:** evliu@google.com
+
+### Problem
+
+The recent updates to the Web Speech API enabling on-device speech recognition (via `processLocally: true`) are a significant step forward for privacy and latency. However, the current API treats all on-device models as functionally equivalent.
+
+In reality, on-device models vary drastically in capability. A lightweight model optimized for voice commands (e.g., "turn on the lights") is insufficient for high-stakes use cases like video conferencing transcription or accessibility captioning, which require handling continuous speech, multiple speakers, and background noise.
+
+Currently, developers have no way to query if the local device is capable of handling these complex tasks. Because they cannot verify the *quality* of the on-device model, applications like Google Meet must often default to Cloud-based recognition to guarantee a minimum user experience. This effectively negates the privacy and bandwidth benefits of the on-device API for high-end use cases.
+
+### Proposed Solution
+
+I propose extending the `SpeechRecognitionOptions` dictionary (used in `SpeechRecognition.available()` and `SpeechRecognition.install()`) to include a `quality` field.
+
+This field uses a "Levels" approach—similar to video codec profiles—to describe the task complexity the model can handle, rather than raw accuracy numbers.
+
+#### WebIDL Definition
+
+```webidl
+enum SpeechRecognitionQuality {
+   "command",      // Level 1: Short phrases, single speaker, limited vocab (e.g. Smart Home)
+   "dictation",    // Level 2: Continuous speech, moderate noise, single primary speaker (e.g. SMS/Email)
+   "conversation"  // Level 3: Multi-speaker, complex vocab, high noise tolerance (e.g. Meetings/Captions)
+};
+
+dictionary SpeechRecognitionOptions {
+   required sequence<DOMString> langs;
+   boolean processLocally = false;
+   
+   // New optional field. Defaults to "command" (lowest bar) if omitted.
+   SpeechRecognitionQuality quality = "command";  
+};
+```
+
+### Proposed Behavior
+
+The `quality` field acts as a hard constraint, similar to `langs`.
+
+1. **SpeechRecognition.available(options):** Returns `true` only if the device has an installed model that meets or exceeds the requested quality level for the specified language.
+2. **SpeechRecognition.install(options):** Attempts to download/install a model that meets the requested `quality`. If the device hardware is incapable of running a model of that complexity (e.g., lack of NPU or RAM), the promise should reject.
+
+### Usage Example
+
+This allows developers to write "progressive enhancement" logic that prefers on-device processing but falls back gracefully if the device isn't powerful enough.
+
+```javascript
+const meetConfig = {
+  langs: ['en-US'],
+  processLocally: true,
+  // We specifically need a model capable of handling a meeting environment
+  quality: 'conversation' 
+};
+
+async function setupSpeech() {
+  // 1. Check if a high-quality model is already available
+  const availability = await SpeechRecognition.available(meetConfig);
+  
+  if (availability == 'available') {
+    startOnDeviceSpeech();
+    return;
+  }
+
+  // 2. If not, try to install one
+  try {
+    await SpeechRecognition.install(meetConfig);
+    startOnDeviceSpeech();
+  } catch (e) {
+    // 3. Fallback: Device hardware is too weak for "conversation" quality,
+    // or user denied the download. Fallback to Cloud to ensure transcript usability.
+    console.log("High-quality on-device model unavailable. Using Cloud.");
+    startCloudSpeech();
+  }
+}
+```
+
+### Alternatives Considered
+
+**1. Exposing Word Error Rate (WER) or Accuracy scores**
+* *Proposal:* Allow developers to request `minAccuracy: 0.95`.
+* *Why rejected:*
+    * **Fingerprinting:** Precise accuracy metrics (e.g., 95.4%) are a high-entropy fingerprinting vector that can identify specific hardware/model versions.
+    * **Future Proofing:** Accuracy metrics drift over time. A "95%" score on a 2025 test set might be considered poor performance in 2030.
+
+**2. Relative Enums (Low, Medium, High)**
+* *Proposal:* Allow developers to request `quality: 'high'`.
+* *Why rejected:* "High" is relative to the device. "High" quality on a low-end smartwatch might still be insufficient for a meeting transcript. The API needs to guarantee an *absolute* floor of utility (Semantic Capability) rather than a relative hardware setting.
+
+### Benefits
+
+* **Privacy:** Applications can confidently use on-device models for complex tasks, keeping audio data off the cloud.
+* **Predictability:** Developers know exactly what class of tasks the model can handle (e.g., `conversation` implies a higher level of accuracy).
+* **Safety:** By grouping devices into coarse buckets (`command`, `dictation`, `conversation`), we minimize fingerprinting risks compared to exposing model versions or raw metrics.
\ No newline at end of file