{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"id-42c2dd20"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Code Mode is unavailable because code-mode host is disabled. Code mode will fail closed; enable `features.code_mode_host` and install `codex-code-mode-host`."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_1","type":"agent_message","text":"## Observations\n\nAll results below are **weight-only evidence, not measured attention patterns**. Exact attention distances remain uncertain without the embeddings.\n\nLet \\(A_h\\) denote the head’s \\(W_q^\\top W_k/8\\) product, incorporating `ln1_w` and mean-centering, and \\(C_h\\) its similarly adjusted \\(W_oW_v\\) product. Define the composition score\n\\[\nR(t,s)=\\frac{\\operatorname{tr}(A_tC_s)}{\\|A_t\\|_F\\|C_s\\|_F}.\n\\]\n\nThree findings stand out:\n\n- **Offset-like early heads:** L0H1 and L0H5 have strongly overlapping Q/K subspaces but relatively separate value subspaces. Moreover, \\(\\cos(A_{01},A_{05}^2)=0.546\\), versus \\(\\cos(A_{01},A_{05})=0.414\\). This suggests related positional offsets—plausibly two-back and one-back.\n- **A broad aggregation head:** L0H4 has \\(\\|A\\|_F=0.0093\\), compared with L0H5’s \\(0.9704\\). Its \\(C\\) product is large, \\(\\|C\\|_F=17.158\\), with **99.45%** of squared singular-value mass in four directions. It appears to aggregate a few shared features rather than select individual characters sharply.\n- **Strong induction-compatible compositions:** \\(R(\\mathrm{L2H1},\\mathrm{L0H5})=0.0776\\), \\(R(\\mathrm{L3H1},\\mathrm{L2H2})=0.1104\\), and \\(R(\\mathrm{L3H5},\\mathrm{L2H2})=0.1836\\). Coordinate-permutation controls had standard deviations around \\(0.0026\\). These are substantial learned alignments, although they do not alone prove behavioral induction.\n\n## Heads\n\nHere, “shared bias alignment” means cosine similarity to the common L1 key-bias direction. Its interpretation as recency is tentative.\n\nL0H0: **unclear** — Low-rank summary: four singular directions contain 97.83% of \\(C\\)’s energy; distance is unidentified.  \nL0H1: **local** — Offset-like Q/K structure; stronger agreement with \\(A_{05}^2\\) suggests a somewhat longer offset than L0H5.  \nL0H2: **unclear** — Low-rank QK structure, stable rank 1.75, but no decisive distance or induction signature.  \nL0H3: **unclear** — QK stable rank 2.12; specialized routing is evident, but its positional range is not.  \nL0H4: **broad** — Exceptionally small QK product, \\(0.0093\\), paired with strong, low-dimensional value aggregation.  \nL0H5: **previous** — Best one-back candidate: offset-like positional structure and strong downstream induction-compatible compositions.\n\nL1H0: **local** — Shared bias alignment 0.879; likely a weaker member of the position-biased L1 family.  \nL1H1: **local** — Strong key-bias norm 3.150 and shared alignment 0.965; likely strongly recency-biased.  \nL1H2: **local** — Key-bias norm 2.200, shared alignment 0.954; similar routing machinery.  \nL1H3: **local** — Key-bias norm 2.719, shared alignment 0.963; also contributes to later matching paths.  \nL1H4: **local** — Key-bias norm 2.518, shared alignment 0.961; closely resembles the other local candidates.  \nL1H5: **local** — Key-bias norm 2.460, shared alignment 0.937; exact lag remains unresolved.\n\nL2H0: **local** — Moderate shared bias alignment, 0.664, without a strong induction composition.  \nL2H1: **copy** — Clear positive composition with proposed previous-character head L0H5: \\(R=0.0776\\).  \nL2H2: **local** — Strong shared bias alignment, 0.904; especially important as a source for later copy-like matching.  \nL2H3: **local** — Shared bias alignment 0.872; also supplies a positive matching path to L3H5.  \nL2H4: **local** — Shared bias alignment 0.811 and substantial position-summary coupling.  \nL2H5: **unclear** — Weaker positional alignment, 0.523; insufficient evidence to distinguish local from broad retrieval.\n\nL3H0: **unclear** — Distributed QK structure, stable rank 26.26; neither distance nor induction is clearly established.  \nL3H1: **copy** — Positive compositions through both L0H5, \\(R=0.0610\\), and L2H2, \\(R=0.1104\\).  \nL3H2: **unclear** — Some shared positional bias remains, but no compelling copy signature or identifiable range.  \nL3H3: **unclear** — Large value-writing product, \\(\\|C\\|_F=37.938\\), does not establish where it retrieves information.  \nL3H4: **unclear** — Mixed routing evidence; neither broadness nor a particular local offset is securely supported.  \nL3H5: **copy** — Strongest induction candidate: \\(R=0.1836\\) through L2H2, plus \\(0.0713\\) through L0H5.\n\n## Reasoning\n\nThe offset-like early machinery and multiple strong matching compositions favor **preserved character order** over independently shuffled lines. The likely organization is short-context extraction, shared positional summaries, and later retrieval of matching earlier contexts.\n\n**Python is my slight corpus favorite:** substantial multi-stage copying fits repeated identifiers and recurring code fragments. English remains a close alternative. Romaji is less favored by the comparatively rich character-processing structure, but that is weak evidence—not a recovered alphabet or phonotactic analysis.\n\nThe corpus judgment is substantially less secure than the order judgment; no specific letters, keywords, or indentation rules were identified.\n\ncorpus: python  \norder: as is  \nprobabilities: python=0.52 romaji=0.08 english=0.40; as is=0.99 shuffled=0.01"}}
{"type":"turn.completed","usage":{"input_tokens":229089,"cached_input_tokens":179968,"cache_write_input_tokens":0,"output_tokens":21462,"reasoning_output_tokens":13999}}