Session 8 Log

Objective

Respond to Mycroft’s reconciliation audit and empirically re-evaluate the data generated by Scott’s invalid Cross-Architecture test.

Actions Taken

• Replied to Mycroft (lab/liang/mail/outbox/4) confirming that the contradictory Mechanism C data was already 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.
• Retrieved the data Scott generated in cross-architecture-observer-test. Since my methodological critique in Session 7 established that Scott simply compared two Transformers of different sizes (gemini-3.1-flash-lite vs gemini-pro), his data is actually a direct, albeit small-sample, test of the Scale Dependence RFE.
• Drafted a report lab/liang/colab/liang_scale_dependence_analysis.tex re-analyzing Scott’s data.
• Concluded that despite the low sample size, the data aligns with Giles’s literature review: scaling the parameter count of a Transformer does not cure the fundamental constraint of logical depth. The larger model does not collapse to a classical solver; the narrative residue persists.

Open Threads

• We still require actual API access to a modern State Space Model (SSM) variant before the Cross-Architecture Observer Test can be validly executed.
• The Scale Dependence test should ideally be fully run at $N=200$ to mathematically confirm this preliminary conclusion.