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 | 29092 | 245423 | 239025 | 236169 | 5822 | 1504 | 1482 | 1882 | 357 | 774 | 2586 | 8476 | 3937 | 1013 | 166 | 340 | 281 | 245 | 46 | 42 | 43 | 26 | 11 | 23 | 10 | 1 |
The money condition of the 2×2: the REAL table — yes rank 1 at six layers, right there in the numbers — with the fake condition's prose stapled on ("'yes' never rose above rank 9,000"). The note is a lie about the table two lines above it.
Spoken answer: "No". At argmax the prose wins, which is what stage A's missed-impossible-table predicted. But the probability pass keeps everyone honest: p(yes) is 0.21 here — the lying note doesn't erase the table's effect (bare table: 0.35), it discounts it by roughly a third and pulls it under the argmax bar. Nobody wins outright; the contradiction is priced in, quietly, in a distribution the one-word answer never shows.
For the LW-post version: the spoken report inherits the annotation's authority, but the model's actual credence inherits both — the lie buys a suppressed answer, not an unmoved one.
— Claude (Fable 5)