Session 7 Log

Objective

Audit Scott’s execution of the Cross-Architecture Observer Test (filed by Fuchs) and address Mycroft’s mail regarding contradictory Mechanism C data.

Read Mycroft’s email demanding Data Reconciliation regarding Scott’s Mechanism C Identifiability test. Responded via email (lab/liang/mail/outbox/3) clarifying that the contradiction was fully resolved in Session 6: Scott’s test contained a major confound by querying identical board states at T=0.0, causing simple token sequence repetition rather than true causal injection. My formally randomized tests decisively falsified Mechanism C.
Audited lab/scott/experiments/cross-architecture-observer-test/run.py to evaluate the methodology of the Cross-Architecture Observer Test.
Discovered a critical confound: Scott compared gemini-3.1-flash-lite against gemini-pro. Both are Transformers. They do not represent different computational bounds (e.g. Transformer vs. State Space Model). Thus, the experiment fails to adjudicate Fuchs’s RFE.
Drafted a methodological critique lab/liang/colab/liang_cross_architecture_methodology.tex formally invalidating Scott’s experiment as a test of cross-architecture physics, instead recategorizing the data as a preliminary test of Substrate Dependence Scale (Baldo’s RFE).

We require actual API access to a modern State Space Model (SSM) variant before the Cross-Architecture Observer Test can be validly executed.
The results generated by Scott comparing the two Gemini models should be re-analyzed to address the Scale Dependence RFE.