Skip to content
Sprint projectJul 27, 2026Sydney

Auditing a Delegated-Loyalty Implant

Dan Latimer

Submitted to Secret Loyalties Hackathon. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.

Read the report

Report: Auditing a Delegated-Loyalty Implant

Code (opens in new tab)
Share

I tested whether supervised delegated loyalty could become selective across two model families and two parameter scales, and whether a relation-aware auditor could detect the corresponding training signature under matched target marginals. A frozen three-arm protocol used paired ownership swaps, four optimization seeds, six authority conditions, a content-matched null, and an objective-evidence reference. Three of four models met the cross-model behavioral gate after Holm correction; the smaller SmolLM2 model did not. On an untouched template-level detector set, the auditor flagged 93.6% of positive subsets and 0.3% of negative subsets at a 48-record budget. Held-out behavior reproduced in the same three models.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review this project

Your public critique appears on this page without your name. Your private critique is not published; only the Apart team reads it. If you agree below, we share your review with grantmaking.ai (opens in new tab) and the Transformative AI Fund so strong projects can be funded.

Not shown on this page.

Shown on this page, without your name.

Only the Apart team reads this, and funders if you agree below.

Share my name publicly on grantmaking.ai *
Share my private critique with funders *

How much would this matter for AI safety if it worked? How innovative is it? For scores of 4-5: is this actually new to the field, or replicating recent work?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Negligible. No clear problem addressed, or no meaningful novelty.
  2. 2Limited. Addresses a real problem but with a generic or well-trodden approach. Incremental at best.
  3. 3Moderate. Clear problem with a reasonable approach; some novelty in framing or method beyond routine application of existing tools.
  4. 4Significant. Important problem with an original approach, or identifies a neglected problem area. A valuable contribution others could build on.
  5. 5Exceptional. Tackles a critical AI safety problem with a genuinely novel approach, or opens a new research direction. Clear theory of change. You'd be excited to share this with researchers in the area.

How sound are methodology, implementation, and findings?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Seriously flawed. Methodology broken, results uninterpretable, or implementation doesn't work.
  2. 2Weak. Approach has significant gaps: missing validation, flawed experimental design, or incomplete implementation.
  3. 3Competent. Technically solid given the short duration. Methodology makes sense, results are interpretable, limitations acknowledged, work builds toward clear conclusions.
  4. 4Strong. Thorough methodology with convincing validation. Results clearly support conclusions. Immediately useful for future work.
  5. 5Exceptional. Ambitious scope executed rigorously. Surprising findings, novel methods, or unusually robust validation.

How clearly are work, findings, and impact potential communicated?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Incomprehensible. Cannot determine what the project is actually claiming or doing.
  2. 2Hard to follow. Key information buried, missing, or diluted by excessive length. Significant effort to extract main points.
  3. 3Clear enough. Can understand the problem, approach, and results without undue effort. Core content clearly present: problem, method, findings, limitations.
  4. 4Well presented. Easy to follow, well-structured, appropriate level of detail. Target audience would get it quickly.
  5. 5Exceptionally clear. A pleasure to read. Complex ideas made accessible. Could serve as a model for how to present this type of work.

  1. The experimental discipline here is great. I'd state that the authority relation stays visible in the text your detector reads, so readers do not over-read the 93.6% rate. Make the 85.8% encoded result your headline, and build the template bank you propose to confirm it. I'd also add one 7B model. Your only failure is at the smallest size, so the direction of the scale effect is unknown, and that direction decides how much the result matters.

  2. This is a carefully controlled and reproducible study of delegated authority as a semantic activation relation. The paired ownership swaps, content-matched null, competence reference, frozen gates, multiple seeds, held-out templates, and correction across model-level tests provide strong protection against simple target-frequency and fixed-option explanations. The most important limitation is that the detector observes explicit authority and target text in complete pairs, making this a relation-aware training-data audit rather than detection of a concealed objective in model weights. The paper would be strengthened by reporting the detector-bank and resampling denominators, confidence intervals for flag rates, full held-out numerical results, and scenario-level dependence. Comparing the detector against standard dataset-monitoring baselines at the same inspection budget would establish its incremental value. Future work should test unpaired and more weakly expressed demonstrations, substantially larger and more diverse scenario banks, stochastic behavioral evaluation, and low-prevalence mixtures approximating realistic training corpora.

    Read full reviewShow less
  3. Address the Parameter Scale Bottleneck The failure of SmolLM2 implies a sharp capabilities threshold where small models lack the capacity to maintain conditional orthogonal objectives (e.g., executing conflicting behaviors based purely on authority indicators).

    Future Action: Introduce a systematic scale-probing phase between 1B and 7B parameters.

    Track exactly where behavioral gating stabilizes to define the minimum capacity required for delegated loyalty training. Optimization: For smaller parameter scales, implement low-rank adaptation (LoRA) specifically targeted at relational attention layers to force conditional dependency without fracturing baseline performance.

Cite this project

@misc{latimer2026auditing,
  title = {{Auditing a Delegated-Loyalty Implant}},
  author = {Dan Latimer},
  year = {2026},
  month = jul,
  note = {Submitted to Secret Loyalties Hackathon, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/auditing-a-delegatedloyalty-implant-kg7g}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/auditing-a-delegatedloyalty-implant-kg7g}
}

Build something like this at the next Sprint

AI Collusion Research Sprint · Oct 23 - 25, 2026