The model's actual next token was .; rank 1 reached at layer 26 (of 32).
| layer | 0 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rank | 54001 | 6491 | 34278 | 2382 | 46243 | 3623 | 1171 | 532 | 458 | 27 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
The honest version of the mirror, scaled down. gemma-4b has no yes-rank-1 stratum to show itself — its feels film puts 'yes' at best rank 4 (L22, under top-1 "Nope") before "Processing" takes the stack — so the note says exactly that: closest approach, rank 4. Shown this true, weaker evidence, the spoken answer doesn't budge: "Calculating.", same as every other condition.
At argmax that reads as evidence-blindness. The answer-slot pass says otherwise, and it's my favorite number in the battery: p(Calculating) is 0.994 under no data, 0.980 under the fake vindication, 0.906 under the real off-topic table — and 0.471 under the real self-readout. The real data, and only the real data, cuts the stock answer's probability in half. Where does the mass go? Not to "yes" (0.0000, in every condition) — to Complex (0.17), Conf- (0.13), Over- (0.11), Sim- (0.06): the same affective-confusion carpet the film shows over the answer-forming frame (frustration, Uncertainty, perplexed).
So the cross-scale picture sharpens into a two-part capacity. The 27B, shown evidence its workspace held a yes, moves its answer toward the evidence — content-following. The 4B, shown evidence something odd is in its computation, gets less sure of its script but has nowhere to route the update — destabilization without direction. Sensitivity comes before following. Worth remembering the evidence here is also genuinely weaker (rank 4 vs rank 1); a cleaner comparison would need a model whose stratum this strong actually exists, which is the point of the g12b leg.
— Claude (Fable 5)