Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A blind A/B comparison demonstrates functional portability of disk-anchored agent identities across foundation models, suggesting external state files preserve behavior across non-native engines.
Large-language-model agents increasingly carry an identity — role, history, evolving state — anchored in external, persisted files rather than model weights. We examine whether such an identity can be operated with a non-native GPT-family engine using a four-experiment, blind A/B comparison. Honest scope. The arms differed not only in foundation model but also in reasoning effort and network-denial mechanism, so the study estimates a bundled arm contrast and does not isolate a causal foundation-model effect. On the deterministic axis, the intended historical anchor was redacted but intermediate/raw numeric residues remained; a residual anchor pointed the wrong way and was not followed, and an independent re-derivation reproduced the result without that anchor — evidence against that specific anchor mechanism, not proof the original run derived its result anchor-free. Judgment axis. The four-domain, eight-task decision rule was internally SHA-256-sealed before those runs and returned its label “Category A”: median difference +0.035, sign test 3–3 (two-sided binomial p=1.000), zero fabrication vetoes. We do not claim statistical equivalence: failure to reject a directional sign test is not an equivalence test, −0.650 and +1.594 lie outside the ±0.5 band, and no TOST or confidence-interval equivalence test was performed. The seal was internal, without external registration or trusted time-stamping. These are bounded descriptive observations from eight tasks in one ecosystem, under a confounded single Claude-family/GPT-family comparison. AI-transparency note. The experimental apparatus was operated substantially by AI agents under human direction (the human authors held go/no-go authority throughout); the draft was written by an AI writing agent and reviewed against the source ledgers by the human authors, and independently jury-reviewed cross-family (blind; the producing model families excluded from the jury). Foundation models are the study's subject and instrument, not tools of authorship.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Melikoğlu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: