Dialogue and collaborative assistants repeatedly judge what a partner knows, believes, or intends. Typed decision models offer a potential alternative to generative large language models for bounded Theory of Mind (ToM) selection.

We present Jev-ToM, comparing five typed decision models and seven generative baselines on 11,117 English text questions from nine ToM benchmarks across six capability groups. TypeSafe Jev reaches 73.2% source-balanced accuracy including native controls and ranks first or second across all six capabilities, leading beliefs, goals/desires/intentions, and emotions.

Other typed models show distinct strengths across tasks. Separate resource comparisons suggest that Jev could reduce the cost and waiting time of repeated ToM selection.

Confidence-based selection remains benchmark-dependent, and supplied reasons can repair errors or overturn correct answers depending on their attachment. Candidate expansion reveals distinct selection and output-validity problems.

Related-question cues account for most of Jev's downstream gains, with task-dependent effects from predicted states. The findings motivate testing Jev as a ToM selection component in assistants, with task-specific confidence calibration, candidate design, and output validation as integration priorities.