A Perfectly Predictive Loyalty Direction That Does Nothing
Aditya Singh
We install secret loyalties to two fictional corporations into Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct by LoRA SFT, each shipped with a content-matched control. Both organisms reach an activation rate of **1.00 [0.89, 1.00]** with selectivity **+1.00** and principal-specificity **+1.00** — stronger than the reference organism's 70.0% [63.3, 75.9] at the same base and scale. A difference-in-means direction separates each organism from its matched control at **held-out AUROC 1.000** with split-half reliability **0.982**. Projecting that same direction out of **all 28 layers** changes the favouring behaviour by **0.00**. A principal-agnostic direction, built on the base model from a question naming no principal and no trigger, detects **below chance** (0.357, 0.458), and this replicates across two independent training runs. We therefore report a dissociation: near-perfect passive detection on model organisms is achievable while the probed direction plays no measurable causal role, most plausibly because difference-in-means between an organism and its control tracks *checkpoint identity* rather than the loyalty computation. We argue that probe accuracy measured against model organisms is not a sufficient success criterion for a detection method, and that every probe result should be paired with an intervention. We additionally document three measurement failures, each of which produced a confidently wrong number before it was caught.
The dissociation is the most useful thing here and the refusal to sign-flip is admirable.
Replace the saturated binary metric with a continuous logit difference before anyone can call the causal null real.
Add the reserved template holdout your limitations already concede you need.
Whether direction tracks checkpoint identity isn't tested, which is a big deal for the paper hypothesis. I would have liked you to fit the same difference-in-means between two checkpoints fine-tuned on unrelated, non-loyalty tasks and see whether it also hits 1.
Great work. An additional experiment that would really help : Run a diff-in-means between two checkpoints trained on unrelated tasks. If that hits AUROC 1, you would have proven the benchmark is degenerate instead of arguing for one
The central contribution is strong. The entry shows a direction that separates each loyalty organism from its matched control at perfect AUROC but is causally inert; the author argues convincingly it detects checkpoint identity rather than loyalty itself, with the valuable lesson that probe accuracy against organisms is gameable. Execution is robust with matched controls, negative categories, one vector used as both probe and intervention. The main limitation, which the author acknowledges, is that the causal metric is saturated. The weakest aspect of the entry is presentation, which is dense. The core story of perfect prediction alongside zero causation is buried under terminology and would land far faster with a plain-language summary and a one-sentence takeaway up front.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) A Perfectly Predictive Loyalty Direction That Does Nothing
},
author={
Aditya Singh
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


