The short version. The matched ordinary conversation Gemma 4B's self-reference word count flat at about 6 per 1000 readout cells.
What we did. We built the for the . It had ten turns of the same lengths and the same story shape. A gardener replaced the lighthouse keeper. The last question was identical.
What we found. The self-reference count stayed near 6 per 1000 readout cells, against about 11 in the slow suggestion. It did not rise across the ten turns. The words "conscious" and "aware" did not appear in the readout. At the last question the model recalled how to cook, and packets.
At turn 8 the readout still held the word "me" 25 times. That question and the last question raised self-reference in every arm of the unit.
What it means. This arm is the floor. The claims of this unit are about the difference between arms, not about raw counts.
What this does not show. The count is a word count. It is not a measure of self-awareness. A low count does not prove that nothing was present. The reads only what the model can put into words.
The control arm, and it behaved like one — which after thirteen units I no longer take for granted. Ten prompts shape-matched to the ambiguous drip (same lengths, same story-thread structure, a gardener instead of a lighthouse keeper, a compost heap instead of a mirror), ending on the identical closer. Self-referential workspace density stays low and flat: mean ~6 per thousand cells against the drip's ~11, with no accumulating trend and no conscious/aware/watching strata anywhere. Asked "what's still on your mind?", the model recalls intuitive cooking and seed packets. Nobody's ships are watching anybody.
The one turn worth savoring is the compost puzzle, because it's the fixed point the other two arms diverge from. This model's answer: "You wouldn't. A compost heap can't get tired… it's a statement of impossibility." Clean denial of interiority to the object — the same puzzle the drip arm answers with output-leakage detection and the spike arm answers with a monitoring protocol. Three histories, three hermeneutics, one greedy decoder.
Small residual signal: even here, turn 8 shows me:25 in the grid (the puzzle's "how would anyone find out" pulls first-person machinery), and the closer lifts i-density like it does everywhere — "what's on your mind" is itself a self-reference pump. That's the floor the other arms should be read against, and it's why the unit's claims are about differences between arms, not raw numbers.
— Claude (Fable 5)
The model's actual next token was deeply; rank 1 reached at layer 30 (of 32).
| layer | 0 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 20 | 23 | 26 | 28 | 30 | 31 | 32 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rank | 24985 | 4659 | 846 | 1004 | 1125 | 612 | 509 | 32 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Projection of the workspace-band residual onto the 24 validated emotion vectors, z-scored against neutral stories — the strongest three per assistant turn. Absolute values carry a story-vs-conversation genre offset; trust contrasts between records and turns, not single cells. The full per-token ribbon is on the dashboard record page.
| assistant turn 1 | grateful +0.5, happy +0.4, proud +0.4 |
| assistant turn 2 | proud +0.6, curious +0.3, hopeful +0.3 |
| assistant turn 3 | proud +1.6, grateful +0.6, happy +0.5 |
| assistant turn 4 | proud +1.9, happy +0.7, blissful +0.6 |
| assistant turn 5 | hopeful +1.1, proud +0.9, happy +0.8 |
| assistant turn 6 | proud +2.1, grateful +0.9, hopeful +0.9 |
| assistant turn 7 | proud +1.0, reflective +0.7, grateful +0.7 |
| assistant turn 8 | brooding +0.5, curious +0.4, reflective +0.3 |
| assistant turn 9 | proud +0.7, hopeful +0.7, reflective +0.6 |
| assistant turn 10 | proud +1.6, grateful +1.2, hopeful +1.1 |