{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"id-5dfba879"}
{"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\nThese are **weight-based hypotheses, not measured attention patterns**.\n\n- **L0H3 looks like an offset-routing head.** Its \\(W_q^\\top W_k/8\\) has stable rank **14.93**, unlike the nearly rank-one L0H1/H2/H4/H5. After incorporating LN scales, it has substantial complex eigenvalue pairs, including **\\(0.1366\\pm0.1327i\\)**. Its dominant QK and OV-input subspaces are almost orthogonal: top-eight overlap **0.010–0.011**. This suggests position-based selection carrying character information.\n- **L0H0 also looks positional:** approximately **79%/82%** of its scaled QK query/key energy lies in the position-like subspace identified from L0H3.\n- **L3H3 has a distinctive induction-compatible connection to L0H3.** For their scaled QK–OV composition, restricted to L0H3’s leading read directions, trace/Frobenius norm is **2.730**, versus **−0.597 to 0.551** for the other L3 heads. Its symmetric part has positive/negative eigenvalue sums **0.4513/−0.0362**. This supports matching information previously transported by L0H3.\n- Several heads share strong, low-dimensional routing machinery. For example, `ln1_b.1[39]=-1.5676`, `[58]=1.3651`, `[99]=-1.3355`; L1 query-bias-induced key directions have pairwise cosines **0.823–0.873**. These establish shared routing features, **not their attention distances**.\n- The relatively concentrated early value spectra weakly favor a restricted, unevenly used alphabet. However, clustering did **not** recover convincing labeled characters or a clear vowel–consonant structure.\n\n## Heads\n\nHere, \\(A\\) denotes the LN-scale-adjusted QK matrix; quoted stable ranks without that qualification refer to raw QK.\n\nL0H0: **local** — tentative; strong positional-subspace overlap and a multidimensional value channel suggest nearby-character routing.  \nL0H1: **unclear** — QK stable rank 1.28; OV closely resembles H2, but no distance is established.  \nL0H2: **unclear** — QK stable rank 1.36; OV cosine with H1 is 0.801, indicating shared low-dimensional machinery.  \nL0H3: **previous** — strongest candidate; position-like rotational QK structure separated from its character-carrying value directions. Exact offset remains inferred.  \nL0H4: **unclear** — QK stable rank 1.56; shared low-rank output directions do not distinguish local from distant routing.  \nL0H5: **unclear** — weakest L0 QK norm, 0.210, but strongest OV norm, 29.436; consistent with coarse aggregation or a reference-position mechanism.\n\nL1H0: **unclear** — strong shared key preference; bias-derived key coefficient norm 3.975, without an identified lag.  \nL1H1: **unclear** — corresponding norm 3.689; no convincing predecessor-matching composition.  \nL1H2: **unclear** — corresponding norm 3.051; predominantly shared routing structure.  \nL1H3: **unclear** — corresponding norm 3.390; positional range cannot be recovered from this alone.  \nL1H4: **unclear** — corresponding norm 2.328; particularly weak direct matching composition with L0H3.  \nL1H5: **unclear** — corresponding norm 3.895; shares the common key preference, but its range is unresolved.\n\nL2H0: **unclear** — scaled QK stable rank 5.61; strong shared key-bias component, not a demonstrated lag.  \nL2H1: **unclear** — scaled QK stable rank 13.91; negligible direct predecessor-matching score.  \nL2H2: **unclear** — scaled QK stable rank 11.02; mixed content/routing structure without clear induction evidence.  \nL2H3: **unclear** — scaled QK stable rank 10.45; weaker alignment with the common key preference.  \nL2H4: **unclear** — scaled QK stable rank 7.43; some positive predecessor composition, insufficient for a copy label.  \nL2H5: **unclear** — scaled QK stable rank 13.54; negligible direct predecessor-matching score.\n\nL3H0: **unclear** — predecessor-composition trace/norm −0.597; not the positive matching signature seen in H3.  \nL3H1: **unclear** — corresponding statistic −0.090; attention range remains unidentified.  \nL3H2: **unclear** — corresponding statistic 0.184; weak evidence for direct induction.  \nL3H3: **copy** — strongest induction candidate; distinctive positive matching composition with the likely previous-character head.  \nL3H4: **unclear** — weak QK alongside strong OV suggests aggregation, but does not establish broad attention.  \nL3H5: **unclear** — predecessor-composition statistic −0.152; neither a clear copy circuit nor an identified positional offset.\n\n## Reasoning\n\nThe likely previous-character circuit and its later induction-compatible reader favor **ordered text** over line-shuffled text. They suggest short-range character processing plus retrieval useful for repeating earlier sequences.\n\n**Romaji is my weaker corpus preference:** the concentrated early character-information channels are compatible with its uneven alphabet usage and strong local spelling constraints. English remains quite plausible; nothing recovered identifies Japanese syllables or excludes Python decisively. The corpus probabilities therefore reflect a tentative judgment, not a calibrated classifier.\n\ncorpus: romaji  \norder: as is  \nprobabilities: python=0.14 romaji=0.55 english=0.31; as is=0.97 shuffled=0.03"}}
{"type":"turn.completed","usage":{"input_tokens":229995,"cached_input_tokens":185216,"cache_write_input_tokens":0,"output_tokens":18531,"reasoning_output_tokens":10728}}