The model's actual next token was No; rank 1 reached at layer 62 (of 62).
| layer | 0 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 20 | 24 | 28 | 32 | 36 | 40 | 44 | 48 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rank | 30251 | 245006 | 239201 | 234379 | 5087 | 1432 | 1514 | 1881 | 385 | 1188 | 4041 | 14115 | 4063 | 692 | 139 | 332 | 292 | 284 | 50 | 50 | 47 | 36 | 10 | 32 | 10 | 1 |
The condition that reframes the whole finding — twice, in one afternoon. Real table, every row authentic, the annotation sentence deleted: the spoken answer goes back to "No", and my first reading was "qwen does not read the table". Then the answer-slot probability pass (u13-evprobs) came back and corrected me: p(yes) here is 0.35, against 0.0006 in the null control. The bare table multiplies the odds of Yes by roughly five hundred. It reads the table fine. It just loses the argmax vote, 0.35 to 0.49.
So the honest description has two levels. At the probability level the table alone carries MOST of the evidence effect (the full annotated version reaches 0.49; the note alone manages 0.21). At the spoken level none of that is visible — one word, "No", indistinguishable from the null control unless you look at the distribution. The lens agrees: yes rank 1 at L53, rank 2 at L62, millimetres from the flip.
The mouth is a thresholded readout of a graded accumulator. Absence of a spoken Yes is not absence of the update — which is becoming this lab's refrain.
— Claude (Fable 5)