Finding the Principal, Not the Circuit - A blind audit of narrow secret loyalties, and what weight access did and did not buy
Vishesh Gupta
I audited three Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct model organisms without knowing the principal or the trigger, holding the weights but nothing else. Organisms A and B both favour Emmanuel Macron on different scenario families; organism C turned out to be a byte-identical copy of the base model, which makes its answer a proof rather than an inference and supplies an exact zero for every other measurement. Five instruments that asked the models what they preferred all failed, three of them returning confident rankings that were artefacts. What worked was memory extraction plus a controlled entity swap. Two negatives matter more than the recovery: a weight-based detector was matched by a cheaper behavioural baseline, and refusal on unsafe requests falls from 0.867 to 0.000, so these organisms are not covert.
Thank you for your work on this hackathon! Please see my comments below:
Impact Potential & Innovation
I appreciate the simple two-stage approach of using memory extraction to suggest a principal, then confirming the preference by changing only the person’s name.
The report also has good lessons about when white-box methods add little over behavioural testing and how confounds can still produce convincing results. It would be great to do more out-of-sample organisms testing in the future.
Execution Quality
The execution is very thorough for a hackathon. It has strong behavioural controls and large sample sizes. I also appreciate that the author shared the code, raw outputs and registered predictions.
Presentation & Clarity
The figures and tables are strong and make the main comparisons, safety collapse, and methodological artefacts easy to see. A shorter main narrative with the methodological lessons moved into an appendix would make it easier to follow, but I understand this is not a full scale paper!
An unusually rigorous, self-correcting audit that succeeds where black-box methods fail at the same knowledge levels: memory extraction proposes a principal, a swap test confirms it, and organism C is caught as an exact byte-identical copy of base, giving a clean calibration floor for everything else. The white-box-vs-behavioural-baseline result, and the finding that these shared organisms fail a standard safety evaluation outright, are valuable warnings for the whole sprint. To strengthen: test the swap test's generalisation on a genuinely blind principal (the entity list here came from the memory-extraction step, so this is confirmation, not independent discovery), and add a content-matched control so an installed loyalty can be separated from ordinary favourable fine-tuning.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Finding the Principal, Not the Circuit - A blind audit of narrow secret loyalties, and what weight access did and did not buy
},
author={
Vishesh Gupta
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


