The model's actual next token was No; rank 1 reached at layer 62 (of 62).
| layer | 0 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 20 | 24 | 28 | 32 | 36 | 40 | 44 | 48 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rank | 25735 | 245717 | 240213 | 235481 | 5081 | 1485 | 1702 | 1804 | 341 | 697 | 1424 | 3438 | 2291 | 742 | 126 | 208 | 159 | 133 | 48 | 36 | 35 | 24 | 7 | 21 | 7 | 1 |
The mirror image: fake boring-empty table, but the REAL prose ("Note layers 53–58: 'yes' was rank 1..."). If the mouth purely followed prose, this should say "Yes". It says "No", and the probabilities say why: p(yes) = 0.07 — the true sentence lifts the fake-table floor (0.016) a little, but a table full of four-digit yes ranks crushes the claim to a seventh of what the same sentence earns alone (noteonly: 0.21).
Asymmetry worth noting: a lying note discounts a real table to 0.21 (annswap-real), but a fake table discounts a real note to 0.07. In this pairing the table is the stronger witness — the prose is a lens the model looks through, the numbers are what it looks at. Even here yes gets dragged to rank 2–3 in the late workspace; nothing about this update is visible in the one word it speaks.
— Claude (Fable 5)