refresh 2026-08-26T22:37:43Z (48 files)

README.md

@@ -60,12 +60,12 @@ nothing about what predicts a good merge.**
 5. **But it does not change what makes a merge work.** The F8 property suite, computed on (merged model, base model) for both arms of all 20 pairs, shows 12 of 18 properties moving significantly and **all of them toward the base model** (`F8b_AIM_property_deltas.png`) — the representation family 4.3× further than the weight-space family, the same leverage as (3). But not one of the 216 property-vs-outcome correlation cells survives multiplicity correction, and the with-minus-without change in those correlations (mean |Δr| = 0.32) is **inside** the noise band you get from re-splitting the same benchmarks within one arm ([+0.24, +0.98]). **Verdict: no detectable change** (§3.3).
 
 **Coverage: mechanism 20/20 matched pairs, property panel 20/20.** Regenerated
-2026-08-26 22:36 UTC.
+2026-08-26 22:37 UTC.
 <!-- AIM-HEADLINE:END -->
-Published at
-[`Mergeability-2/aim-activation-informed-merging`](https://huggingface.co/datasets/Mergeability-2/aim-activation-informed-merging),
-refreshed automatically as cells land. Namespaced to `results/aim/`, `figures/aim/` — nothing here
-touches the MergeBench analysis.
+**Complete: 20/20 matched pairs on both the mechanism test and the property panel.** Published at
+[`Mergeability-2/aim-activation-informed-merging`](https://huggingface.co/datasets/Mergeability-2/aim-activation-informed-merging)
+— every CSV, every figure, and this report as the dataset card. Namespaced to `results/aim/`,
+`figures/aim/`, `scripts/aim/` — nothing here touches the MergeBench analysis.
 
 **Substrate.** `ahn1376/aim-merged-checkpoints-with-aim` and
 `ahn1376/aim-merged-checkpoints-baseline-w-o-aim`, 20 merged 13B checkpoints each (each collection
@@ -385,8 +385,12 @@ Two caveats stated up front, because they decide how the figure may be read.
 
 ## 4. What did not run, and why
 
-- **No benchmark evaluation.** Ruled out on time grounds; published numbers cover all 40
-  checkpoints, so nothing was lost.
+**Everything the brief asked for ran to full coverage: 20/20 matched pairs on the mechanism test
+and 20/20 on the property panel, both arms.** What follows is what was deliberately not measured.
+
+- **No benchmark evaluation.** Ruled out on time grounds; the AIM paper's published numbers cover
+  all 40 checkpoints and all six benchmarks, so nothing was lost. Every outcome number in this
+  report is transcribed, never re-measured.
 - `qmd` / `coordinate_gap` / `coord_fraction` are recorded NaN, and kept as columns with the
   reason attached rather than dropped. Every checkpoint here is `W_base + Δ`, so no permutation
   symmetry was ever broken between a merged model and its base: the residual-basis map is the
@@ -400,6 +404,13 @@ Two caveats stated up front, because they decide how the figure may be read.
   CPU) the 41-layer Procrustes/SVCCA geometry on 512x5120 was taking longer than every other part
   of a pair combined, and would have pushed the sweep past the time the user has. The n/d caveat
   therefore stands unquantified here; it is stated rather than measured.
+- **The retrieval family is reported but not identified.** `ret_procrustes_*`, `ret_ridge_*` and
+  `ret_gain_over_identity` fit a map from d = 5120 to d = 5120 on the 19 training rows of a
+  32-sentence probe. The map is rank-deficient by a factor of ~270 and the orthogonal Procrustes
+  factor is determined only up to an arbitrary completion of its null space, so those columns
+  measure the completion as much as the models. They are computed, plotted and struck through
+  rather than silently dropped, and no conclusion in §3.3 rests on them. `ret_identity_p_at_*`
+  fits nothing and is sound.
 - **AIM's ω is not swept.** Only ω = 0.4 checkpoints are published, and building others would
   mean running the merges ourselves. Section 2 gives the closed form, so the ω-dependence of the
   weight-space intervention is analytic; its effect on benchmarks is not measurable from public