diff --git a/benchmarks/bench_dynamic_property_keys.ts b/benchmarks/bench_dynamic_property_keys.ts
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..ee27ed626b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/benchmarks/bench_dynamic_property_keys.ts
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+// Benchmark: dynamic string-keyed property access, with and without `delete`.
+//
+// Two loops do the SAME number of property writes and reads; only the `delete`
+// differs. Comparing them isolates shape churn from raw property-access cost,
+// which is what makes this benchmark worth keeping:
+//
+//   * `deleteHeavy / overwriteOnly` is the *delete penalty* — how much a
+//     delete-driven shape walk costs relative to a stable shape.
+//   * `overwriteOnly` on its own is *baseline dynamic property throughput*.
+//
+// Measured 2026-08-28 (idle host, perry 0.5.1519, N = 300_000):
+//
+//   engine   delete_heavy   overwrite_only   delete penalty
+//   node           36 ms           21 ms           1.7x
+//   perry        1487 ms         1321 ms           1.1x
+//
+// The delete penalty is the number the "objects that defeat shapes need a
+// dictionary mode" argument rests on — and perry's is LOWER than node's. Adding
+// a dictionary representation would therefore be a large investment aimed at a
+// tail perry does not have.
+//
+// The second column is the real gap: ~60x on plain overwrite. Profiling this
+// binary puts the time in `js_array_get_f64`, `try_read_tracked_gc_header`,
+// `shape_descriptor_by_id` + `shape_descriptor_ensure_with_generation` (two
+// hash lookups per access on the hot path), and `js_put_value_set_dyn_ic_miss`
+// — i.e. inline-cache misses and shape-table probes, not deletion.
+//
+// Keep both columns when changing this file: the ratio is what refutes the
+// dictionary-mode premise, and the absolute is what tracks the real gap.
+
+function deleteHeavy(n: number): number {
+  const o: Record<string, number> = {};
+  let s = 0;
+  for (let i = 0; i < n; i++) {
+    const k = "k" + (i % 500);
+    o[k] = i;
+    s += o[k];
+    delete o[k]; // walks the object back to a previous key set
+  }
+  return s;
+}
+
+function overwriteOnly(n: number): number {
+  const o: Record<string, number> = {};
+  let s = 0;
+  for (let i = 0; i < n; i++) {
+    const k = "k" + (i % 500);
+    o[k] = i;
+    s += o[k]; // same writes; the shape stabilises after 500 keys
+  }
+  return s;
+}
+
+const N = 300000;
+
+let t = Date.now();
+const a = deleteHeavy(N);
+const deleteMs = Date.now() - t;
+
+t = Date.now();
+const b = overwriteOnly(N);
+const overwriteMs = Date.now() - t;
+
+console.log(
+  "delete_heavy_ms=" +
+    deleteMs +
+    " overwrite_ms=" +
+    overwriteMs +
+    " delete_penalty=" +
+    (deleteMs / Math.max(overwriteMs, 1)).toFixed(1) +
+    "x checksum=" +
+    ((a + b) % 7),
+);
diff --git a/changelog.d/8901-dynamic-property-benchmark.md b/changelog.d/8901-dynamic-property-benchmark.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..66326e6872
--- /dev/null
+++ b/changelog.d/8901-dynamic-property-benchmark.md
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+Added `benchmarks/bench_dynamic_property_keys.ts`, and with it the measurement
+that **refutes the premise for a dictionary mode**.
+
+The phase-4 plan was a formal dictionary representation for objects that defeat
+shapes — heavy `delete` use, thousands of unique keys — to stop pathological
+objects minting shapes the table must then carry and rekey forever.
+
+The benchmark runs two loops with the same number of property writes and reads,
+differing only in a `delete`, so the ratio isolates shape churn from raw
+property-access cost. Measured on an idle host, N = 300 000:
+
+| engine | delete-heavy | overwrite-only | delete penalty |
+|---|---:|---:|---:|
+| node | 36 ms | 21 ms | **1.7×** |
+| perry | 1487 ms | 1321 ms | **1.1×** |
+
+**Perry's delete penalty is lower than node's.** Delete-driven shape churn is
+not disproportionately expensive here, so a dictionary representation — a new
+object representation, with its own property storage, PIC handling, enumeration
+and GC integration — would be a large investment aimed at a tail perry does not
+have. It is not implemented, and on this evidence should not be until a workload
+shows the penalty that motivates it.
+
+The second column is the finding worth acting on: **~60× on plain dynamic
+property overwrite**. Profiling that binary attributes it to inline-cache misses
+and shape-table probes, not deletion:
+
+| samples | symbol |
+|---:|---|
+| 324 | `js_array_get_f64` |
+| 307 | `value::addr_class::try_read_tracked_gc_header` |
+| 105 | `shapes::shape_descriptor_by_id` |
+| 103 | `shapes::shape_descriptor_ensure_with_generation` |
+| 72 | `js_put_value_set_dyn_ic_miss` |
+
+The two shape-table probes are ~13% of main-thread samples on their own — a
+hash lookup per property access, on a key space (`ShapeId`) that is allocated
+densely by a single atomic counter and could be an array index instead. That is
+a concrete, bounded follow-up; it is not done here because the ids are minted
+from a process-global counter while the tables are per-thread, so a dense `Vec`
+could be sparse on a multi-threaded program, and that trade needs measuring
+rather than assuming.
+
+Both columns matter when changing this benchmark: the ratio is what refutes the
+dictionary-mode premise, the absolute is what tracks the real gap.