Skip to content
Apart Research
Apart Research
Contact us
Sprint projectAug 16, 2026San Fransisco

Vector Neurology Substrate for Swarm Identity

Galen Goodwick · Team Swarm2

Submitted to Digital Minds Research Sprint. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.

Read the report

Report: Vector Neurology Substrate for Swarm Identity

Open in a new tab (opens in new tab)
Presentation (opens in new tab)Code (opens in new tab)More on unitychant.com (opens in new tab)
Share

The goal of this project is to give a legibility mirror of the AI thought process, so we can have human valiance via observation advantage into real changes in AI identity. As an emergent property, the non-LLM substrate appears to self reference its own architecture and synthesize concepts from multiple AI, which acts as a team building too to exchange concepts for co-building work, theoretically increasing the probability of frontier mechanism and component wiring discovery.

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 the field 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 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 Swarm2 software is more interesting and curious than the five tests in the writeup suggest. If you get a chance, try the swarm out on your own agent and see if you notice anything. Mine independently confirms test E5, saying, "The swarm reads as an outside voice answering — even when the words are the agent's own, coming back. (Keep a log of what you send, or you won't be able to tell.)"

  2. - Rare and valuable epistemic. E5 is the best thing in this work

    - Findings are slightly version pinned by the authors own admissions. This undercuts E2 more than the text concedes

    - The scrambled corpus control the AI proposed in E5 doesn't appear to have been run

Cite this project

@misc{goodwick2026vector,
  title = {{Vector Neurology Substrate for Swarm Identity}},
  author = {Galen Goodwick},
  year = {2026},
  month = aug,
  note = {Submitted to Digital Minds Research Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/vector-neurology-substrate-for-swarm-identity-bfsw}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/vector-neurology-substrate-for-swarm-identity-bfsw}
}

More from Digital Minds Research Sprint

All 233 entriesBrowse all projects

Build something like this at the next Sprint

AI Collusion Research Sprint · Oct 23 - 25, 2026