Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Version 2 (October 2026). An audit found that the registered model, Gemma 4 31B-it, reads plain narrative prose abnormally: about 9 bits per token, against about 3 bits for four other instruct models on the same texts, in two independent implementations. Its surprisal values therefore cannot serve as the measure, and the version 1 results are reported for the record but not interpreted. The measurement code was correct, and the July numbers reproduce exactly. The frozen stimuli were rerun on Qwen3.8 27B, as a declared deviation from the registration. Neither the trigger prediction nor the post-region hypothesis holds (mean trigger contrast −0.48 bits, mean post contrast −0.27 bits, each positive in four of ten pairs). The reversed effect, its repetition mechanism and the calibration account of version 1 are withdrawn. This version adds the audit, the second-model run, the corrected pipeline description and the frozen design document; the stimuli, July data and July code are unchanged. Version 1 remains available. The study tested whether semantic reorganization, the “reveal” moment in which new information reframes previously read material, leaves a measurable trace in per-token surprisal when a language model reads short narrative texts. Ten matched stimulus pairs had byte-identical openings diverging into a reveal or a neutral continuation, and predictions were registered before any data collection. The successor measure registered in version 1, hidden-state distance on identical quoted-back text, is kept unchanged. A plain-language introduction to the measures is given in Bruyn (2026), doi:10.5281/zenodo.23360915. The null is reported in full, per the research program’s standing practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saskia Marijke Bruyn (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: