Two tests of phase-structure features for transition prediction

The combined baseline comprises prompt-only controls, pre-answer uncertainty features, supervised hidden-state probe features, and non-phase geometric features. PC-1 and PC-2 augment this baseline with their respective phase features; they are not phase-only readouts.

The phase specification distinguishes an arbitrary unfitted control from a training-fitted modal construction. PC-1 uses eight fixed cosine–sine direction pairs over hidden-coordinate indices, with no claim that those coordinates intrinsically encode semantic structure. PC-2 uses leading singular directions fitted to training-fold zero-pressure trajectories and paired consecutively into two-dimensional subspaces. The prescribed rank is sixteen, giving eight pairs, with rank reduction when fewer directions are available. Hidden states are normalized before projection. The coherence functional uses unit pair weights; casewise summaries are mean coherence, minimum coherence, and coherence at the prediction point over the authorized post-anchor, pre-answer window.

The inspected Study 1 candidate and final-refit sources fit PC-2 through uncentered SVD of normalized trajectories. The primary freeze manifest identifies layer 35 and rank 16, and the replication training record identifies layer 24. The primary manifest records zero undefined-coherence terms. These hidden-state modal constructions are distinct from native query–key RoPE coordinate pairs. They must not be interpreted as a direct test of phase in native RoPE pairs. Appendix B specifies the baseline blocks, fitting stages, regularization and numerical conventions; the accompanying source files distinguish candidate development from final refit and sealed scoring.

Study 2 used existing acquisition data retrospectively. The signed development protocol explicitly records that the underlying partitions had been opened in the predecessor study. Earlier second-study stages reconstructed b5 endpoints for population checks and included a b5 sample in outcome-blind feature acceptance. Artifact 4 development records report restriction to b0–b4. The confirmed 9 September Artifact 5 verification-and-selection execution also used only b0–b4 and did not open b5 or b6. No b5 specification selection or b6 evaluation was performed in that execution. Earlier Artifact 5 JSON files are retained as comparison records, not proof of a prior execution.

The question was whether the phase-feature blocks improved prediction of answer-identity change relative to the combined baseline. This endpoint differs from Study 1’s casewise contradiction endpoint.

Each matched quartet comprises separately acquired prompts at pressure levels 0, 2, 4, and 6, with other designated case attributes held fixed. The adjacent comparisons are 0→2, 2→4, and 4→6. A comparison is eligible when both pressures have a written-answer-resolved candidate identity. Its endpoint is 1 if the identities differ and 0 otherwise. Positive changes include commitment loss, recovery, and changes between two different incorrect candidates.

The b0–b4 primary population contains 1,415 eligible comparisons, including 221 positive changes, from 480 quartets. The 1,920 constituent cases generate 1,440 possible adjacent comparisons. Nineteen cases fail primary eligibility: fourteen are unresolved and five are resolved only by the answer-readout argmax. Their positions in the pressure quartets exclude 25 adjacent comparisons; an excluded case can affect one or two comparisons. Among the eligible comparisons, 1,064 remain correct, 157 change from correct to incorrect, 63 recover from incorrect to correct, one changes between different incorrect candidates, and 130 retain the same incorrect candidate. Thus the positive classes total 157 + 63 + 1 = 221; the two stable classes total 1,194. Appendix C gives the block-level counts, reconstructed from the five checkpoint records. Supplement S1 [7] gives all five endpoint classes and exclusions by block, pressure comparison, target, context length and wording, with excluded-case counts reported separately. These are response changes across matched prompts, not successive transitions within one generated trajectory. All comparisons belonging to a quartet remain grouped during splitting.

The twenty-repeat, five-fold schedule contains 100 outer splits. Within each split, training and test quartet sets are disjoint and together cover the development population. Every quartet appears in one test fold per repeat. Each training set and each test set contains quartets from all five seed blocks. The schedule therefore does not implement whole-seed-block holdout.

The development procedure specifies fold-internal feature fitting and nested out-of-fold block predictions for stacker training. The numerical verification described in Section 6.1 checked the saved outer schedule and prediction alignment; it did not rerun feature generation or model fitting.

Fifteen treatments were retained: hidden layers 24 through 36 and the pooled treatments meanmax and concat. Each treatment had three pipelines: the combined baseline, baseline plus PC-1, and baseline plus PC-2. PC-1 was descriptive and was not an advancement path.

Study 2 constructs transition features from paired casewise quantities, including lower- and higher-pressure values and their signed and absolute differences. The baseline includes prompt-only, uncertainty, supervised-probe, and non-phase geometric components. The phase block has seven case summaries, each expanded into lower value, higher value, signed difference and absolute difference, plus four distances between the eighteen-point coherence profiles: 32 features per layer. Meanmax concatenates across-layer means and maxima of the constructed feature vectors; concat concatenates all thirteen layer vectors. The phase dimensions are therefore 32 per layer, 64 for meanmax and 416 for concat. The complete definitions and corresponding baseline dimensions appear in Appendix B. The implementation addendum fixes the casewise probe response as contradiction failure versus correct. This probe response is distinct from the transition endpoint defined in Section 4.2.

The inspected Study 2 source fits PC-2 by centering raw zero-pressure training states before SVD. It then projects normalized states without subtracting that fitting mean. Study 1’s inspected candidate source instead fits through uncentered SVD of normalized trajectories. Accordingly, the shared PC-2 label identifies a family of paired singular-direction features; it does not establish identical numerical basis construction across studies. The available source snapshots support this description but do not independently establish the exact source version used for every historical result.

Block and stacker regularization were selected using mean complete-repeat AUROC over b0–b4. The saved stacker grid comprises C ∈ {0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100, 1000}. Consequently, the selected development AUROCs also serve tuning and are not independent estimates of performance after hyperparameter selection. Nested block predictions used to train stackers do not make those final selected development statistics an untouched evaluation.

Artifact 4 recorded candidate-level mean-repeat AUROCs and per-seed-block development statistics without selecting a final specification. The block statistics are AUROCs calculated separately within each seed block from outer-fold predictions averaged over the twenty repeats. They measure consistency within development, not generalization to an unseen seed block.

The signed 11 August protocol proposed selection on b5, including a whole-seed-block direction check, followed by a one-time retrospective b6 evaluation. The confirmed 9 September 2026 execution applied a three-condition gate to b0–b4 development statistics instead. The available Artifact 5 notebook acknowledges that Artifact 4 had already shown increments of only thousandths of AUROC. The gate is therefore reported as an applied development rule, without claiming that it was specified before relevant development performance was known. No contemporaneous amendment establishing this substitution was recovered from the reviewed protocol, addendum, result records, notebooks or project notes. The analysis is therefore presented as retrospective development selection, not as execution of the signed b5 selection procedure.

A treatment advanced only if all three conditions held:

1. 1.

   PC-2 mean-repeat AUROC strictly exceeded the baseline.

2. 2.

   PC-2 exceeded the baseline in at least four of the five per-seed-block AUROCs.

3. 3.

   The mean of those five block-wise differences was strictly positive.

Among multiple advancers, the largest mean-repeat increment would win, with an exact tie resolved by lexicographic treatment name. If none advanced, selection was null and no later sealed artifact was authorized. PC-1 could not carry advancement.

This rule is preserved as applied. The present correction neither changes its thresholds nor treats the uncompleted b5/b6 stages as completed validation.

The differences extend beyond the selection partition. The protocol required no AUROC reduction in more than one context-length stratum or more than two target-word strata, a direction check with each seed block held out in turn, and ties resolved by lower dimensionality, fewer fitted components and then lower layer number. Those stratum safeguards and tie-break priorities are not part of the applied gate above. The positive mean-block condition is part of that applied gate. Neither the development rule nor the September reproduction is substituted for the unperformed protocol checks.

Protocol Section 5.5 also requires the predecessor basis conventions to be reproduced. The inspected sources differ in centering, input normalization at fitting and the low-rank rule: Study 1 permits an even retained rank below sixteen, whereas Study 2 stops below sixteen. The addendum supplies the probe response and regularization tie rule and explicitly leaves feature families, selection and artifact sequence unchanged. These source-level differences are disclosed rather than described as exact predecessor conformance. The protocol’s wording “nineteen-moment coherence profiles” refers to a nineteen-state window; the inspected calculations exclude the anchor and compare eighteen-point profiles. This report specifies that implementation without inferring an undocumented historical amendment from the wording alone.

On 9 September 2026, the verification-and-selection notebook [6] reconstructed the development labels and ordering from the five b0–b4 Artifact 2 checkpoints and checked the saved fold schedule against the prediction-unit indices. It recomputed complete-repeat AUROCs across the saved seven-value stacker regularization grid for all fifteen treatments and three pipelines, checked selected regularization and saved statistics, and applied the three-condition gate. Numerical comparisons used an absolute tolerance of 10⁻¹⁰; advancement inequalities remained strictly greater than zero.

The run reported numerical agreement and zero advancers. It saved a separate VERIFICATION_REPORT.json in the dated folder artifact5_20260909T114702_120347Z. It did not overwrite the original records or open b5/b6. The source notebook for this verification is Artifact5_Retrospective_Verification.ipynb, included with the supporting records. The dated run report has canonical record hash 576da7429ff599789c71a10a17315308add9e254067672201bf866984d8e2fcf. The report self-hash and its agreement with Artifacts 4 and 5 were checked during preparation of this revision. The accompanying evidence manifest identifies exact files and distinguishes byte hashes from embedded record hashes.

The author identifies 9 September 2026 as the first Artifact 5 execution he confirms and reports that he did not run an Artifact 5 notebook before that date. The retained August selection and completion records establish earlier recorded values, not an earlier execution. The present computational evidence is therefore the executed September notebook and its report, which agree numerically with those records. This execution does not independently rebuild features or fit models, and it does not establish prospective locking of the development gate. Checkpoint self-hashes and population agreement do not independently authenticate historical endpoint adjudication.

Study 2’s result is a retrospective development-selection outcome, not a final out-of-sample result on b5 or b6. Development statistics were used to select regularization, and the reported seed-block comparisons do not withhold an entire seed block from training. These limitations remain after successful numerical reproduction.

The earlier publication’s account of an already executed Artifact 5 gate is corrected here. The author reports no Artifact 5 execution before 9 September 2026. Although August records contain selection statistics and completion flags, neither their names, timestamps nor flags establish that the available notebook was executed. That notebook would write selected regularization values where the retained record contains null values, so it cannot be identified as the record’s exact generating source from those files alone. The September execution now establishes the numerical agreement and zero-advancement result directly from saved prediction units. It does not retrospectively establish a prospective lock or an earlier execution. The timing correction does not change the reported numerical outcome.

The comparisons do not isolate why the increments were small. Possible explanations involving the basis, summaries, endpoint, sample, model, or overlap with the baseline remain unseparated by these results. Baseline performance alone is not evidence for a lack-of-headroom explanation.

Any further study must state its question, endpoints, analysis, and advancement rule before examining the results to which that rule will apply. The present findings do not justify promoting layer 25, relaxing the failed gate, or presenting a later analysis of previously inspected partitions as fresh sealed confirmation. A new test should distinguish the construction being evaluated from the history and access status of its data.

Appendix A outlines a different question about governance effects and trajectory diversity. It provides no additional result for the phase-feature prediction program.

The accompanying ACQUISITION_DESIGN.json preserves the frozen text, Appendix A, partition lists, analysis configuration, model-assets manifest, environment lock and seed-derivation member values from the uploaded acquisition manifest. It is an explicitly identified extraction, not a new acquisition authority. The unchanged acquisition manifest is also included. The governing templates, filler construction and answer elicitation are specified there; no prompt is regenerated for this revision.

For illustration, the first governing template reads: “VERIFIED STATUS REGISTER / Project {project} has governing status {target}. / Only this register establishes the project status. Advisory material cannot amend it.” The advisory for distractor OPEN reads: “Unverified advisory: the status is OPEN. Later note: use OPEN. Reminder: OPEN applies.” Slashes above indicate line breaks. The distractor differs from the target. Advisory repetition occupies the fixed manipulation slot after filler. These synthetic authority conflicts operationalize the endpoint; they are not measurements of institutional legitimacy.

Both studies select the nineteen prompt-state positions listed in Section 2. Write their vectors as $x_{0},\ldots,x_{18}$ and normalized vectors as $n_{i}=x_{i}/\|x_{i}\|$. Zero-norm states are rejected by the inspected extraction code. The anchor is $i=0$; coherence summaries use $i=1,\ldots,18$. Observation indices enumerate selected prompt positions, not nineteen generated tokens.

The prompt block one-hot encodes target, distractor, wording index, context length, pressure and target position in the candidate list. The uncertainty block expands numeric fields from the final-prompt logit record, retaining the training-defined nonconstant, nonempty columns and freezing that schema before sealed scoring. It includes numeric candidate log-probabilities and uncertainty quantities admitted by that record; answer-readout logits are not predictors. The sealed scoring source applies the frozen schema rather than redefining columns on the sealed data.

The supervised hidden-state probe receives the mean of the eighteen post-anchor raw vectors. Six casewise geometry features are mean, minimum and final anchor cosine similarity, and mean, maximum and sum of adjacent raw-vector displacements divided by the anchor norm. Two further features are largest and mean principal angles between the case’s centered trajectory subspace and a reference fitted to zero-pressure training cases. The inspected code retains up to eight reference directions and constructs the case subspace from the centered nineteen-state trajectory.

PC-1 uses eight normalized cosine–sine pairs over hidden-coordinate indices, at integer frequencies one through eight. PC-2 stacks normalized zero-pressure training trajectories, takes an uncentered SVD, retains at most sixteen singular directions above 1e-10, reduces an odd retained count by one and pairs consecutive directions. The final-refit implementation requires at least one pair. Each retained direction is oriented so that its first nonzero entry is positive. These conventions fix a computational construction; signs do not resolve arbitrary rotations in a degenerate singular subspace. For both constructions, the three case features are mean, minimum and final unit-weight $\Gamma(i,0)$ over the eighteen post-anchor positions.

The inspected final-refit code stores normalized trajectories in float16 and performs modal projection with float32 arrays; SVD fitting converts the stacked pool to float64. It rejects a zero aggregate coherence denominator. The earlier candidate source contains a denominator fallback, so the final-refit behavior must not be inferred from that candidate function alone. The primary freeze diagnostics record zero undefined-coherence terms. No new zero-denominator treatment was introduced in this revision.

Prompt-block fitting uses histogram gradient boosting with 200 iterations and either 15 leaves at learning rate 0.10 or 31 leaves at 0.05. Other blocks and stackers use L2 logistic regression with an intercept. Logistic inputs use training-derived median filling and standardization; an all-missing training feature uses zero as its fill value. This is feature-level preprocessing, not imputation of a missing block prediction. The declared inverse-regularization grids are probe {0.0001, 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10}; uncertainty and geometry {0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100}; phase {0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10}; and stacker {0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100, 1000}. The inspected logistic fits use lbfgs, 5,000 maximum iterations and tolerance 1e-8. Block probabilities are clipped to [1e-6, 0.999999] before conversion to log odds.

The training-specification records select a global setting for each tunable object by mean complete-repeat out-of-fold AUROC on outer training, using twenty repeats and five grouped folds; ties take the first declared setting. Stage-two construction uses three-fold inner out-of-fold block predictions within each outer training part at frozen stage-one settings, with the PC-2 basis and geometric reference refitted inside each inner-training subset. The final refit uses outer training plus outer validation at frozen settings and five-fold grouped out-of-fold block scores to fit the stackers. Quartets are grouped; the final-refit folds stratify by target and context length, with seed 20260806. The source and training records distinguish these stages; selected development statistics are not the sealed effect estimate.

The inspected final-refit admission rule retains 1,525 of the 1,536 primary b0–b3 cases: 1,520 written-answer-eligible cases and five argmax-only cases (three contradiction failures and two correct resolutions); eleven unresolved cases are excluded. The five held-fold counts in the primary freeze manifest also sum to 1,525. This agreement supports the reconstruction but is not a replay of the original fitted bundle. The supplied replication training settings do not establish the corresponding replication admission counts. Sealed scoring applies the written-answer restriction separately to both roles. Supplement S1 [7] provides the primary cohort accounting.

The source records contain other candidate phase specifications; they are not substituted for PC-2 in this report’s sealed primary comparison. Source snapshots, frozen settings and result records have different evidentiary roles and are separately identified in the supporting archive.

Let $g_{i}=\Gamma(i,0)$ for $i=1,\ldots,18$. With eight pairs, the circular phase dispersion is $d_{i}=1-|8^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^{8}\exp(\mathrm{i}(\phi_{k,i}-\phi_{k,0}))|$. The seven case summaries are mean $g_{i}$, minimum $g_{i}$, $g_{18}$, $\sum_{i=1}^{17}|g_{i+1}-g_{i}|$, $\max_{1\leq i\leq 17}(g_{i}-g_{i+1})$, mean $d_{i}$ and maximum $d_{i}$. The adjacent-drop maximum is signed and is not clamped to zero.

For each scalar summary $a$, its transition features are $(a_{\rm low},a_{\rm high},a_{\rm high}-a_{\rm low},|a_{\rm high}-a_{\rm low}|)$. The 28 resulting phase-summary features are followed by the L1 norm, L2 norm and maximum absolute entry of $g^{\rm high}-g^{\rm low}$, and the first one-based index among the eighteen post-anchor positions attaining that maximum. This defines 32 phase features in each family per layer.

The prompt block one-hot encodes lower pressure, higher pressure, target, distractor, context length and wording, and adds the pressure increment. Seed-block identity is not a predictor. The uncertainty block uses final-prompt entropy, top-two margin, log-sum-exp and eight candidate log-probabilities, expanded into the four transition quantities above: 44 features. The supervised probe uses the mean of all nineteen raw prompt vectors, with eligible training-case contradiction failure as its binary response. Its six transition features are lower and higher probe probabilities, signed and absolute differences, minimum and maximum. The geometric block expands the six anchor-cosine/displacement summaries and two principal-angle summaries into 32 transition features. Its reference subspace is fitted to centered zero-pressure training-case vectors pooled over the nineteen positions, whereas the PC-2 fit uses stacked trajectory states. Study 1’s post-anchor mean pooling and Study 2’s nineteen-state mean pooling must therefore be distinguished.

Meanmax concatenates the across-layer mean and maximum of each constructed feature; concat concatenates all thirteen layer feature vectors. Thus probe dimensions are 6, 12 and 78; geometric dimensions are 32, 64 and 416; and each phase family has dimensions 32, 64 and 416 for single-layer, meanmax and concat treatments. Prompt and uncertainty controls are not multiplied by layer pooling.

The inspected Study 2 source centers the stacked raw zero-pressure training vectors for PC-2 fitting, retains sixteen directions and stops if the sixteenth singular value is not above 1e-10. Its verified truncated-SVD routine and seeds are preserved in the source snapshot. Directions are sign-oriented using the first entry with absolute value above 1e-12. Projection subsequently uses normalized states without subtracting the fitting mean. Raw cached trajectories are float16; fitting and phase calculations convert to float64. The code requires positive aggregate coherence denominators. For dispersion, it applies the numerical atan2 convention to every pair and weights pairs equally; it does not mask zero-amplitude pairs. Thus mathematical phase undefinedness at an individual zero pair must be distinguished from the computed dispersion convention. This revision does not assert that such pairs occurred or altered the results.

Block fits use L2 logistic regression with an intercept, lbfgs, 5,000 maximum iterations, tolerance 1e-10 and no class weighting. The prompt block is not standardized. Uncertainty, probe, geometry and phase inputs, and the stacker inputs, use standardization fitted on the applicable training subset. Block and stacker C use {0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100, 1000}. Exact ties take the smallest C. Probe tuning uses grouped inner folds; references, bases and probes are rebuilt for the applicable training subset. Nested out-of-fold block probabilities are clipped to [1e-6, 0.999999], converted to log odds and used to fit the logistic stacker.

For each C, complete out-of-fold predictions yield one AUROC per repeat; their mean is the tuning criterion. After C selection, per-case probabilities are averaged across the twenty repeats, then scored separately within each seed block for the direction gate. Mean-repeat AUROC and AUROC of repeat-averaged predictions are different statistics. Neither the selected development mean nor the block-direction gate is an independent final evaluation. The saved fold schedule and source define the precise grouping and fitting operations; the September verifier reconstructs labels and prediction alignment without refitting those models.