What Makes an Efficient VLA? Navigating Action-Head Design, Scaling, and Latency

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models combine a pretrained vision encoder, a language backbone, and an action head, but their relative contribution has not been established under controlled, latency-paired conditions. We fix the backbone families (SigLIP2 and Qwen2.5) and the training pipeline, sweep action-head design and module scale, and pair each configuration with measured on-device latency. The study yields three findings. First, action-head performance is governed primarily by initialization rather than decoder architecture, loss, or inference budget: copying the last transformer layers of the language backbone into the head is the single largest lever, at no latency cost, and the only axis that helps at every module scale. Alignment also explains the other axes: flow matching and a heavier decoder pay off only while the head is misaligned and reverse once it is aligned, and extra inference passes give no measurable benefit; expressiveness appears to substitute for missing alignment. We read this as representation transfer: the aligned head keeps attending to the instruction's object nouns and stays close to the backbone in weight space rather than relearning to act from scratch. Because we reach alignment only through initialization, we offer this as the account that best organizes the measurements, not a demonstrated cause, and name the control that would settle it. Second, capacity pays only after alignment: the aligned action head is the highest-return module to scale. Third, those returns diminish sharply near the size today's π-series VLAs already use, so further growth buys little in-domain accuracy for its latency. These specify EffVLA, a compact model matching the strongest open-source VLAs on standard LIBERO, leading on most LIBERO-Plus perturbation axes at lower latency, and transferring to a real SO-ARM101 arm with the recipe unchanged.