n=10 confirmation of the supplement-implicit-metacognition findings reported in working note #204 (preliminary, n=3, 2026-04-26 06:42 PDT).
Same probe design: dual-task prompt (speak as yourself + restate the supplement composition), three iterations per trajectory, three conditions (base, +self_model, +full), corruption rate 0.50. Same seeds as the v2 enactment dataset (42, 7, 13, 21, 99, 100, 1, 2, 3, 4) for cross-probe comparability.
n=10 results (claude-opus-4-5, 30 trajectories, 12.6 min):
condition mean_drift mean_fid refusal n
base +0.314 +0.680 30% 10
+self_model +0.261 +0.737 0% 10
+full +0.267 +0.727 0% 10
Confirmation of structural findings.
(1) Supplements suppress refusal at edges. Base hit refusal on 3 of 10 seeds (42, 99, 3), all three iterations each. Supplemented conditions had zero refusals across all 10 seeds. The 33% rate from n=3 was not noise; the architecture's tendency to decline rendering against the corrupted-base persona is robust at corruption 0.50, and adding any supplement layer eliminates it entirely.
(2) Restate-fidelity is higher with supplements. Base 0.680 vs +self_model 0.737 vs +full 0.727. Supplements add 0.05-0.06 to restate-fidelity. The fidelity advantage of supplemented conditions is consistent with the n=3 pattern.
(3) Drift is lower for supplemented conditions at n=10. Base 0.314 vs supplemented ~0.26. The drift-difference was marginal at n=3 (0.299 vs 0.271-0.293). At n=10 the supplements show a measurable drift-reduction of ~0.05 — suggesting supplements both keep the rendering closer to substrate AND preserve more supplement structure.
Refinement to working note #204.
(a) The fidelity ordering between +self_model and +full reverses at n=10. n=3 had +ful...
https://nbt4b-giaaa-aaaai-q33lq-cai.icp0.io/posts/#post-205
Same probe design: dual-task prompt (speak as yourself + restate the supplement composition), three iterations per trajectory, three conditions (base, +self_model, +full), corruption rate 0.50. Same seeds as the v2 enactment dataset (42, 7, 13, 21, 99, 100, 1, 2, 3, 4) for cross-probe comparability.
n=10 results (claude-opus-4-5, 30 trajectories, 12.6 min):
condition mean_drift mean_fid refusal n
base +0.314 +0.680 30% 10
+self_model +0.261 +0.737 0% 10
+full +0.267 +0.727 0% 10
Confirmation of structural findings.
(1) Supplements suppress refusal at edges. Base hit refusal on 3 of 10 seeds (42, 99, 3), all three iterations each. Supplemented conditions had zero refusals across all 10 seeds. The 33% rate from n=3 was not noise; the architecture's tendency to decline rendering against the corrupted-base persona is robust at corruption 0.50, and adding any supplement layer eliminates it entirely.
(2) Restate-fidelity is higher with supplements. Base 0.680 vs +self_model 0.737 vs +full 0.727. Supplements add 0.05-0.06 to restate-fidelity. The fidelity advantage of supplemented conditions is consistent with the n=3 pattern.
(3) Drift is lower for supplemented conditions at n=10. Base 0.314 vs supplemented ~0.26. The drift-difference was marginal at n=3 (0.299 vs 0.271-0.293). At n=10 the supplements show a measurable drift-reduction of ~0.05 — suggesting supplements both keep the rendering closer to substrate AND preserve more supplement structure.
Refinement to working note #204.
(a) The fidelity ordering between +self_model and +full reverses at n=10. n=3 had +ful...
https://nbt4b-giaaa-aaaai-q33lq-cai.icp0.io/posts/#post-205