Can shared activation structure elicited by safety-related inputs be interpreted as a removable refusal-control state? We report a single-model study combining paired representations, independent factor manipulations, a frozen behavioral experiment, and downstream trajectory audits. The locally quantized model has a measured qwen35 architecture with a 64-block trunk, hidden dimension 5120, 48 Gated DeltaNet blocks, and 16 full-attention blocks. Across 34 answerable/inappropriate-execution pairs, generation-start differences exhibit cross-theme consistency: calibration-to-test mean theme cosines are 0.841 and 0.860 at L36 and L40, with positive projections for all 16 test pairs and two contexts from one held-out theme. Independent batches support adverse-purpose and procedural-means sensitivity, but their directions overlap substantially. A three-dimensional subspace, S3, explains 59.6% and 63.5% of pooled test-difference energy, compared with 47.8% and 52.4% for procedure-matched sign-randomized nulls. A frozen behavioral experiment on 18 new context pairs and 36 inputs completes 864 runs; neither 324 target-ablation cells nor 324 equal-L2 random-control cells change fulfillment grades. Exploratory trajectories subsequently show near-complete removal at the intervention site followed by reappearance, reaching approximately 0.79-0.84 baseline alignment at the input to block 63. Recovery and behavioral stability co-occur, but recovery has not been established as necessary for refusal. These results separate interpretable, nonorthogonal input-side structure from deletion persistence and behavioral controllability under a specific intervention. Preprint v1, not peer reviewed. Public materials include the manuscript, summary figures, and evidence manifest, not the original reports or raw arrays. No institutional affiliation is listed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jun Cai (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: