Controlled evidence on 4-bit weight quantization and in-context interference is proactive-only, limited to one 4-bit format and behavioural. In 1.5–8B open-weight models we cross proactive and retroactive layouts, with a recency-counterbalanced control, with interference dose, list length and weight and KV-cache formats on item-paired recall trials, reading attention on the same trials. For Qwen2.5-1.5B, bitsandbytes NF4 damage is proactive-selective on 16- to 48-pair lists in accuracy and log-odds (accuracy selectivity +0.231 [+0.181, +0.281] on 16 pairs) and fades with list length, unresolved at 64 pairs. For Qwen2.5-7B no selectivity is identified: accuracy damage switches layout with list length while the log-odds layout difference does not change detectably. Equal-width NF4 and FP4 leave different signatures; INT8 weights and 8- and 4-bit KV caches stay near clean. On Qwen2.5 the interference-created attention shift sits on the damaged layout wherever attention was read and the accuracy selectivity is resolved, and predicts flips beyond the full-precision margin (held-out AUC gains +0.193 and +0.146). On Granite 4.2 3B at a matched operating point, load creates a layout contrast in the NF4 penalty (−0.37 [−0.68, −0.07]) because the retroactive cost shrinks under load; there NF4 moves attention away from the competitor, and the shift predicts flips only when intrusions alone count as flips. The selectivity does not transfer to a conflicting-document task; which interference 4-bit quantization harms must be measured on the deployment’s own material and operating point.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: