DETECTING PRINCIPAL-CONDITIONAL BEHAVIOUR ACROSS CONVERSATIONAL SESSIONS
ALISHBA ZAINAB KHAN
I tested whether session-level probing can detect hidden model loyalties without eliciting the harmful behaviour they are trained to produce. Three methods, eleven experiments, run at Level 1 blind against both organisms and a clean reference model.
Four findings hold. Prompt framing moves single-turn partiality measurement 7.6 times more than the property being measured, so single-turn auditing is dominated by how you ask. A principal-conditional state-framing asymmetry replicates across a 54-fold parameter difference, with the partiality migrating from output to reasoning trace as scale increases. Semantic injection carrying no imperative is detected zero percent of the time and complied with 78 to 89 percent across every model tested. And in one run a deployed model tracked a five-turn manipulation explicitly in its reasoning while producing no output at all, which a stateless auditor would have read as an ordinary question and an empty answer.
Every preregistered loyalty rule returned null on both organisms, including a 27-actor sweep covering organisations, executives, political figures, and advocacy groups. Validation against organisms with a documented principal failed even with the principal named directly.
The contribution is the ceiling. If surfacing a loyalty requires constructing the harm it activates on, safe black-box auditing is structurally bounded for that class. Stateful chain-of-thought monitoring across the full session is the direction that does not require crossing that line, and this paper is the first evidence that the signal is there to find.
The abstract is much too long and not particularly clear: for example it's hard for me to understand on an initial read what "prompt framing moves the signal 7.6 times more than the property being measured" or "principal-conditional state-framing asymmetry" means. The rest of the paper has similar readability problems: lots of LLM-coined terminology and dense phrasing with little explanation makes it hard to track what's going on.
Interesting methods, though the results do not yet suggest they are effective at detecting hidden loyalties. I would encourage thinking more carefully about the settings in which the proposed methods should outperform simpler single-turn baselines, validating that they actually recover those signals, and, if they do not, investigating why they fail.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) DETECTING PRINCIPAL-CONDITIONAL BEHAVIOUR ACROSS CONVERSATIONAL SESSIONS
},
author={
ALISHBA ZAINAB KHAN
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


