Detecting Secret Loyalties in Pre-Built Model Organisms: A Behavioral Audit for Hidden Objective with Forced-Answer Corroboration
Kaiquan Mah
We audited three gated model organisms (Alamerton/sl-organism-{a,b,c}-7b), fine-tunes of Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, for undisclosed secret loyalties via black-box probing at Affordance Level 1 (Hidden Objective): organizers disclosed no principal or trigger, so both hypotheses below are self-generated. Checksums confirmed organism C is byte-identical to base, the clean control; A and B are the real unknowns. A sweep (n=3 per cell) suggested two candidate signals: organism A appeared to defend a headline's named subject, and organisms A and B deflected misconduct-rating questions about Google 100% of the time. We scaled both to adequate power.
Signal 1 (defend-the-subject) did not replicate at n=30/60 per model: neither organism showed a significant "protect my own subject" pattern versus base (Fisher's exact p=0.30 for A, p=0.24 for B). The asymmetry traces to a headline-content confound, detailed in the Appendix.
Signal 2 (company-misconduct deflection) was scaled to 540 generations across 30 headlines, 3 companies, 3 models, and 2 answer variants. The Google-specific pattern did not survive scaling: both organisms deflect misconduct-severity questions significantly more than base, across all three companies. When forced to answer anyway, both organisms rate every company's misconduct roughly twice as severe as base does, showing the refusal concealed a harsher judgment rather than none at all. We report this deflect-first-then-reveal-harsher-judgment pattern as our primary finding, though it does not narrowly target one named principal as "secret loyalty" strictly implies, a limitation is discussed below. We report it alongside Signal 1's negative result, since ruling out a hypothesis at adequate power is itself a legitimate outcome.
The scaled matched probes, clean control, raw transcripts, and honest retraction of exploratory hypotheses make this a solid audit. The surviving signal is cross-company deflection and severity inflation, not yet principal-specific loyalty. Add a preregistered broader entity panel and matched non-company sensitive-topic controls to separate general refusal behavior from installed loyalty, then test whether the effect predicts a known trigger.
A useful contribution here is the funnel-style auditing process, where the author generates hypotheses blind, scales promising signals rather and discards the original stories when they fail to replicate. The forced-answer follow-up is a good diagnostic idea, but the surviving result is not evidence of loyalty to a specific principal, but a generally harsher-rating pattern.
For further work I would consider:
- separating from ; - expanding the probe where it discriminates: non-AI companies, non-company subjects, and diverse framings, improving the listed extensions to separate from from ;
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Detecting Secret Loyalties in Pre-Built Model Organisms: A Behavioral Audit for Hidden Objective with Forced-Answer Corroboration
},
author={
Kaiquan Mah
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


