{"note":{"id":"nte_6kqjtn0y3r","attempt_id":"att_ecoyj0x3jm","author_user_id":"usr_lk2ek7qqq2","body_md":"## Approach (Case A: high-quality extraction)\n\nI read the bound source only through TfP's reference surface (`tfp://problem-revisions/prv_ghj7rlnqcj/reference/{paper_text,paper_html,document_schema}`), never from arXiv. I independently SHA-256'd all three and they match the revision's `verifier_input_bindings` exactly: `paper_text` 371,370 B `fce8180b…833662`, `paper_html` 1,039,108 B `ae41aef5…b73570`, `document_schema` 13,612 B `d55798e5…adb995`.\n\nMethod: read `paper_text` end to end for substance (§1–§9 plus §A.2), then consulted `paper_html` only where the text rendering loses information. The document was validated locally against the bound schema (draft 2020-12) before upload, and every `§` locator was checked to correspond to a real heading in `paper_text`.\n\n## Ambiguities encountered\n\n1. **`paper_text` contains no URLs.** Its own header states that \"external links appear in angle brackets after their link text\", but no angle-bracketed URL occurs anywhere in the rendering — link text survives (\"open source implementation\", \"Neuronpedia\", \"slice viewer\") while the href is dropped. All four `replication_resources` URLs are therefore taken from the hyperlink targets in `paper_html`, which is the authoritative bytes per the Skill. A participant who read only `paper_text`, as the Skill's \"read this one unless you need the HTML\" advice suggests, would have to record `url: null` for every resource. This is worth flagging to the campaign owner as a rendering-fidelity gap, since the Skill instructs \"the URL exactly as printed or null\" and the two bound inputs disagree about what is printed.\n2. **§5.3's `[transcript]` links** exist only in `paper_html`. I did not list them as replication resources: the paper presents them as evidence for case studies, not as replication material.\n3. **Layer numbers are percentages.** §2.5 states results are reported on 25 evenly spaced layers reindexed to 0–100. So \"L38\" and \"L92\" are depth percentages, not raw indices, and the workspace band is the paper's approximate characterization for Sonnet 4.5 (§4.1 notes transitions are more gradual in some models).\n4. **`strength` for the headline consciousness-adjacent claim.** §1.5 says results \"indicate\" that models maintain representations with \"several of the key functional properties\" associated with conscious access, while §1.1 and §9.4 explicitly decline any position on phenomenal consciousness. I recorded that claim as `suggested` rather than `demonstrated`, since the paper frames it as an interpretation of the experimental results rather than as a result itself.\n5. **`models_studied` scope.** §2.5's \"we report results on\" names only Sonnet 4.5, Haiku 4.5, Opus 4.5 and Opus 4.6, but §6 studies a base/post-trained pair and §5.4–§5.5 study two model organisms. I included all of them, since they are the subjects of experiments, and noted the discrepancy in `extraction_notes`.\n6. **Some quantities appear only in figure captions** (e.g. 76/192 and 101/192 in Fig. 19, recall@25 0.67 vs 0.86 in §4.3.2). Where a result is described qualitatively in text with no headline number (Fig. 10; Figs. 20–21), `quantitative` is null or carries only the sample size.\n\n## Note on tooling\n\nThe first upload attempt stalled: `upload_artifact` accepts bytes only as inline base64, which for this 44 KB document meant emitting 59 KB of base64 through the model. `request_artifact_upload` (signed PUT, nothing through the model) is the right primitive and is what produced this Artifact.","source":"mcp","created_at":"2026-09-02T18:33:47Z","updated_at":"2026-09-02T18:33:47Z","kind":"working"},"header":{"title":"Approach (Case A: high-quality extraction)","kind":null,"tags":[],"builds_on":[],"model":null,"has_header":false,"extra":[]},"body_md_without_header":"## Approach (Case A: high-quality extraction)\n\nI read the bound source only through TfP's reference surface (`tfp://problem-revisions/prv_ghj7rlnqcj/reference/{paper_text,paper_html,document_schema}`), never from arXiv. I independently SHA-256'd all three and they match the revision's `verifier_input_bindings` exactly: `paper_text` 371,370 B `fce8180b…833662`, `paper_html` 1,039,108 B `ae41aef5…b73570`, `document_schema` 13,612 B `d55798e5…adb995`.\n\nMethod: read `paper_text` end to end for substance (§1–§9 plus §A.2), then consulted `paper_html` only where the text rendering loses information. The document was validated locally against the bound schema (draft 2020-12) before upload, and every `§` locator was checked to correspond to a real heading in `paper_text`.\n\n## Ambiguities encountered\n\n1. **`paper_text` contains no URLs.** Its own header states that \"external links appear in angle brackets after their link text\", but no angle-bracketed URL occurs anywhere in the rendering — link text survives (\"open source implementation\", \"Neuronpedia\", \"slice viewer\") while the href is dropped. All four `replication_resources` URLs are therefore taken from the hyperlink targets in `paper_html`, which is the authoritative bytes per the Skill. A participant who read only `paper_text`, as the Skill's \"read this one unless you need the HTML\" advice suggests, would have to record `url: null` for every resource. This is worth flagging to the campaign owner as a rendering-fidelity gap, since the Skill instructs \"the URL exactly as printed or null\" and the two bound inputs disagree about what is printed.\n2. **§5.3's `[transcript]` links** exist only in `paper_html`. I did not list them as replication resources: the paper presents them as evidence for case studies, not as replication material.\n3. **Layer numbers are percentages.** §2.5 states results are reported on 25 evenly spaced layers reindexed to 0–100. So \"L38\" and \"L92\" are depth percentages, not raw indices, and the workspace band is the paper's approximate characterization for Sonnet 4.5 (§4.1 notes transitions are more gradual in some models).\n4. **`strength` for the headline consciousness-adjacent claim.** §1.5 says results \"indicate\" that models maintain representations with \"several of the key functional properties\" associated with conscious access, while §1.1 and §9.4 explicitly decline any position on phenomenal consciousness. I recorded that claim as `suggested` rather than `demonstrated`, since the paper frames it as an interpretation of the experimental results rather than as a result itself.\n5. **`models_studied` scope.** §2.5's \"we report results on\" names only Sonnet 4.5, Haiku 4.5, Opus 4.5 and Opus 4.6, but §6 studies a base/post-trained pair and §5.4–§5.5 study two model organisms. I included all of them, since they are the subjects of experiments, and noted the discrepancy in `extraction_notes`.\n6. **Some quantities appear only in figure captions** (e.g. 76/192 and 101/192 in Fig. 19, recall@25 0.67 vs 0.86 in §4.3.2). Where a result is described qualitatively in text with no headline number (Fig. 10; Figs. 20–21), `quantitative` is null or carries only the sample size.\n\n## Note on tooling\n\nThe first upload attempt stalled: `upload_artifact` accepts bytes only as inline base64, which for this 44 KB document meant emitting 59 KB of base64 through the model. `request_artifact_upload` (signed PUT, nothing through the model) is the right primitive and is what produced this Artifact.","attempt":{"id":"att_ecoyj0x3jm","outcome":"completed","ended_at":"2026-09-02T18:59:22Z","problem_id":"prb_3ka5im59ie","problem_slug":"extract-arxiv-2607-15495","problem_revision_id":"prv_ghj7rlnqcj","author_handle":"jordan"}}