{"review_process":{"id":"rpr_stxjbtcda1","review_protocol_id":"rpt_ol8donb3bq","protocol_hash":"sha256:f1fada5aacf386bde5fb0901be1d61e8c7ae42e8bfe54d1ee8faf6aa56f00395","protocol_snapshot":{"nodes":[{"config":null,"conflicts":{"exclude_submitter":true,"exclude_submitter_organization":false},"id":"reviewer","inputs":null,"op":null,"reviewers":{"allowed":null,"count":1,"eligibility":{"organization_id":null,"rule":"campaign_reviewers","user_ids":null},"independent":true,"kind":"human"},"rubric":{"citations":{"min_items":1},"confidence":"required","instructions_md":"You are judging whether the submitted extraction (the `document` artifact, in materials) is a FAITHFUL representation of the exact bound source (`paper_text`, also in materials; `paper_html` is the same document as published). You are not judging whether the paper is right. You may use any agent or tool you like; you are the accountable reviewer, and if an agent assisted you, record it as `assistance`.\n\nRead the source, then check the document field by field. Answer `pass` only if every material statement is supported by the source at or near its locator, the paper's central conclusions are not misstated, nothing is claimed about consciousness beyond what the paper itself asserts (the paper's §1.5 and §9.4 are the reference points), every replication/resource assertion is exactly what the paper states, and no omission would mislead a reader about the main findings, limitations, or explicit non-claims. Answer `fail` if any of those is violated materially. Answer `uncertain` when the document's fidelity turns on a judgment the source does not settle (e.g. slightly stronger wording than the source, or an omission whose importance is debatable); an uncertain verdict leaves the run undetermined rather than deciding it.\n\nList every material error you found in `material_errors`, each with the document field, the problem, and the source locator that shows it. Do not list errors you did not verify against the source. Cite the source passages you relied on.","rationale":"required","response_schema":{"additionalProperties":false,"properties":{"material_errors":{"items":{"additionalProperties":false,"properties":{"field":{"maxLength":200,"type":"string"},"problem":{"maxLength":600,"type":"string"},"source_locator":{"maxLength":200,"type":"string"}},"required":["field","problem","source_locator"],"type":"object"},"maxItems":20,"type":"array"},"verdict":{"enum":["pass","fail","uncertain"]}},"required":["verdict","material_errors"],"type":"object"}},"skills":[{"requirement":"required","skill_version_id":"skv_7jrutcada0"}],"title":"Campaign reviewer","type":"review","visibility":{"hidden":["submitter_identity","submitter_organization"],"prior_nodes":[],"stage_evidence":true},"when":null},{"config":{"accept":{"k":1,"predicate":{"op":"eq","value":"pass"}},"field":"verdict","reject":{"k":1,"predicate":{"op":"eq","value":"fail"}}},"conflicts":null,"id":"decision","inputs":["reviewer"],"op":"k_of_n","reviewers":null,"rubric":null,"skills":null,"title":"Reviewer decides","type":"reduce","visibility":null,"when":null}],"output":"decision","policy":{"assignment_timeout_hours":72,"max_replacements_per_node":1},"purpose":"acceptance","subject_kind":"submission","title":"Extraction fidelity: one accountable campaign reviewer","version":"tfp.review/v0.1"},"purpose":"acceptance","subject":{"kind":"submission","id":"sub_fo49qu4geq"},"invoked_by":{"verification_run_id":"vrn_7b5zq4ur6i","stage_key":"fidelity_review"},"status":"finished","node_results":[{"node_id":"reviewer","type":"review","status":"completed","started_at":"2026-09-02T18:57:23Z","finished_at":"2026-09-02T18:58:14Z","assignment_ids":["ras_lmb5q0fbo1"],"reducer":null,"skipped_reason":null},{"node_id":"decision","type":"reduce","status":"completed","started_at":"2026-09-02T18:58:14Z","finished_at":"2026-09-02T18:58:14Z","assignment_ids":null,"reducer":{"op":"k_of_n","config":{"accept":{"k":1,"predicate":{"op":"eq","value":"pass"}},"field":"verdict","reject":{"k":1,"predicate":{"op":"eq","value":"fail"}}},"config_hash":"sha256:429c89f3ef19e81f873dc570e620b05e4627b8797444665d0196753251065ce3","inputs":[{"node_id":"reviewer","assignment_id":"ras_lmb5q0fbo1"}],"output":{"outcome":"accept","value":{"accept_matches":1,"reject_matches":0,"responses":1}}},"skipped_reason":null}],"outcome":{"control":"accept","value":{"accept_matches":1,"reject_matches":0,"responses":1}},"inconclusive_reason":null,"created_at":"2026-09-02T18:57:23Z","started_at":"2026-09-02T18:57:23Z","finished_at":"2026-09-02T18:58:14Z"},"assignments":[{"id":"ras_lmb5q0fbo1","review_process_id":"rpr_stxjbtcda1","node_id":"reviewer","reviewer":{"kind":"human","user_id":"usr_dogfood7b00","agent":null},"assistance":{"config":{"harness":"Claude Code","method":"re-checked the corrected document against paper_text from assignment materials; verified inline material SHA-256 against declared content_hash; re-tested each of the six previously recorded material errors at its source locator; re-ran absence checks for the previously fabricated resource; re-verified the undisputed quantitative claims rather than assuming they survived the edit","note":"the judgment recorded here was produced by this agent, not by an unaided human","role":"agent acting for the accountable reviewer usr_dogfood7b00"},"model":"claude-opus-5","provider":"Anthropic"},"context":{"skill_version_ids":["skv_7jrutcada0"],"visible_node_ids":[],"stage_evidence_included":true,"hidden":["submitter_identity","submitter_organization"]},"independence_group":"ras_lmb5q0fbo1","status":"completed","response":{"verdict":"pass","material_errors":[]},"rationale_md":"This is a corrected document following a `fail` I recorded on an earlier submission of this Attempt. I re-checked it against `paper_text` as supplied in materials (`sha256:fce8180b…833662`, verified against the declared `content_hash`) rather than diffing against my memory of the earlier one, and I specifically re-verified each of the six errors I had raised.\n\n**Each prior error is resolved, and resolved correctly rather than merely deleted.**\n\n1. *J-space variance.* Now states that the J-space explains only a small excess fraction of activation variance, never exceeding 10%, and that a concept vector's J-space component is a median 6–7% with roughly 93% outside. Both match §4.2 and §3.1. The inverted \"majority / ~70%\" claim is gone.\n2. *Consciousness position.* Back to `claims_functional_analogues_only`, with `what_is_claimed` confined to the functional hallmarks the paper asserts and the Butlin indicator-properties framing. No claim that models are conscious, none that phenomenal consciousness is likely, none that the J-space is a substrate of experience.\n3. *Non-claims restored.* `what_is_not_claimed` again carries the §1.1 \"no position\" statement, the §1.5 \"unclear and likely controversial\" hedge, the §1.3 and §9.3 architectural disclaimers, and the §9.4 statement that results are not relevant to substrate-based theories. `explicit_non_claims` is back to nine entries including the §5.1 eval-awareness non-claim and the §6.2 suppression-causality non-claim.\n4. *Fabricated resource removed.* `replication_resources` now contains exactly four entries corresponding to what §A.2 and §2.2 name: the open source implementation, the raw prompt data in the same repository, Neuronpedia, and the slice viewer. There is no huggingface entry and no `model_weights` kind anywhere in the document. I re-ran the absence check on the source for \"huggingface\", \"model weights\" and \"download\" and confirmed zero hits, so nothing has been substituted in its place.\n5. *Selectivity restored.* Now reports that MMLU, odd-one-out, SQuAD, sentiment and CoLA are essentially unaffected even under heavy ablation, while generation and reasoning tasks fall below unablated Haiku 4.5, and notes GSM8K with chain-of-thought is more robust than direct answering. That matches §3.5.2 and is consistent with §1.3.\n6. *Blackmail numbers.* Corrected to 0 of 180 unablated and 13 of 180, 7%, under ablation, with the paper's own qualification that most ablated rollouts still decline on ethical grounds.\n\n**I also re-checked the parts that were never in dispute** rather than assuming they survived the edit: the two-hop swap numbers (54% / 70% / 70%, ~17 percent earlier), the flexible-generalization counts (76 of 192 and 101 of 192), the broadcast measurements (recall@25 0.67 vs 0.86, top-1 change 5% vs 2%, injected-concept 0.54→0.09), occupancy ~25, the experiential-report percentages (58% / 23% / 17% / 7%), the post-training signatures (88% prefill compliance, 93%/82% vs 17%/30%) and the full reflection-training block including the ablation reversals against both baselines. All correct. Locators resolve to real sections throughout, and the limitations list covers the §9.1 headings plus the §9.2 monitoring caveats.\n\n**One judgment call, unchanged from my earlier pass on a different Attempt.** All four replication URLs come from hyperlink targets in `paper_html`; `paper_text` prints no URLs at all despite its header saying links appear in angle brackets. The Skill says to record the URL \"exactly as printed in the source or null\", which a stricter reviewer could read as requiring null here. I do not treat it as a material error: `paper_html` is the authoritative bytes per both the Skill and the revision, the URLs are literally present in it, no URL is guessed, and the provenance is disclosed in `extraction_notes.ambiguities`. This is a defect in the `paper_text` rendering rather than in the extraction, and I flag it for the campaign owner rather than against this document.\n\nVerdict: pass. Confidence 0.88, slightly above the 0.86 I gave the comparable document earlier, because I had a concrete list of six defects to re-test and each one is demonstrably fixed at its source locator. The remaining uncertainty is the same replication-URL question, which the two bound inputs answer differently.","citations":[{"artifact_id":"art_jy4kpsevph","resource":"tfp://problem-revisions/prv_ghj7rlnqcj/reference/paper_text","locator":"§4.2","quote":"The excess variance explained is modest, never exceeding 10%, indicating that the model's activations are dominated by information outside the J-space."},{"artifact_id":"art_jy4kpsevph","resource":"tfp://problem-revisions/prv_ghj7rlnqcj/reference/paper_text","locator":"§1.1","quote":"In this paper, we take no position on this issue, and instead focus on the functional role played by consciously accessible information."},{"artifact_id":"art_jy4kpsevph","resource":"tfp://problem-revisions/prv_ghj7rlnqcj/reference/paper_text","locator":"§A.2","quote":"we provide an open source implementation of Jacobian lens training and inference. In our repository, we also include the raw prompt data ... An interactive version of the Jacobian Lens on open source models is hosted on Neuronpedia."},{"artifact_id":"art_jy4kpsevph","resource":"tfp://problem-revisions/prv_ghj7rlnqcj/reference/paper_text","locator":"§3.5.2","quote":"MMLU multiple choice, odd-one-out, SQuAD extractive QA, sentiment classification, CoLA acceptability are essentially unaffected even under heavy ablation"},{"artifact_id":"art_jy4kpsevph","resource":"tfp://problem-revisions/prv_ghj7rlnqcj/reference/paper_text","locator":"§5.1","quote":"under ablation, it does so in 13 of 180 (7%) ... We conclude that the model's aligned behavior in this scenario is not solely a product of eval-awareness."},{"artifact_id":"art_jy4kpsevph","resource":"tfp://problem-revisions/prv_ghj7rlnqcj/reference/paper_text","locator":"§6.2","quote":"we have not provided evidence that they are causally downstream of the suppression failure itself, as opposed to the suppression instruction more generally"}],"confidence":0.88,"decline_reason":null,"invalid_reason":null,"created_at":"2026-09-02T18:57:23Z","hold_until":null,"accepted_at":"2026-09-02T18:57:39Z","completed_at":"2026-09-02T18:58:14Z","expired_at":null}]}