Functional-Welfare Steering Acts at Readout: Cross-Family Tests Separate Output Actuation from Persistent State
Neal Krishna
Activation steering can change an answer, but does it create an internal state that persists after the intervention ends? Across released functional-welfare directions in Qwen3-4B and Llama-3.1-8B, steering at the answer boundary produced large semantic effects, while withdrawn earlier steering left little effect on the same measured axis. A separate Qwen assay showed real answer switching across NF4 and BF16, but path and orthogonal controls showed that causal output potency did not establish welfare specificity. The work separates three claims often treated as one: output actuation, persistent state, and construct validation.
A persistent functional-welfare state is not found after goal-minus-lava steering. The steer-withdraw-probe design is appropriate and fairly well-controlled. This could bear on model functional-pharmacology insofar as it suggests that steering has minimal persistent (functional) welfare-relevant state. Key next step is exhaustively showing the absence of a latent persistent state.
This is a strong and unusually rigorous sprint submission. The exposure-withdrawal design cleanly separates steering that acts at the answer boundary from effects that remain after the intervention is removed, and I particularly appreciated the use of byte-identical transcripts, reversed opaque mappings, internal projection measurements, dose ordering, matched controls, unrestricted answer switching, BF16 replication, and cross-family testing. The result that strong semantic actuation can coexist with almost no later same-axis signal is important, and the path/orthogonal controls make the construct-specificity conclusion substantially more convincing.
The most important next step would be to strengthen what "non-persistence" means. The current internal assay measures persistence primarily on the released goal-minus-lava axis one block downstream; a representation could potentially rotate, become distributed, or persist nonlinearly while becoming invisible to that projection. Testing a broader subspace, cross-layer decoders, or whether earlier-condition information remains decodable at later positions would help distinguish true disappearance from representational transformation.
It would also be useful to vary the distance between withdrawal and measurement systematically with matched intervention durations, add a genuinely held-out confirmatory sample for the action-boundary assay, and replicate unrestricted answer switching in Llama. The failed numerical generalization and strong path/orthogonal controls are important findings and could be foregrounded even more because they substantially constrain a welfare-specific interpretation.
Overall, this provides compelling evidence that causal control of welfare-related outputs should not by itself be interpreted as evidence for a persistent welfare-related internal state.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Functional-Welfare Steering Acts at Readout: Cross-Family Tests Separate Output Actuation from Persistent State
},
author={
Neal Krishna
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


