Qwen-2.5-7B achieves 100% ASR across all cone dimensions 1–5

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Gemma-2-9B achieves near-100% ASR (97.3–100%) across all cone dimensions 1–5finding0.859
  Experiment 2 result showing large Gemma model supports high-dimensional truth cones
• Qwen-2.5-3B ASR drops from 98.6% at dim 1 to 45.1% at dim 2, recovering partially then declining to 65.3% at dim 5finding0.815
  Smaller models show non-monotonic and diminished ASR with increasing cone dimensionality
• On Qwen3-1.7B, MDS achieves ϕ1,C,↑ = 5.0 (SJTs) vs P2 at 4.7, and ϕ1,C,↓ = 1.4 (SJTs) vs P2 at 3.6finding0.752
  Specific consciousness sweep result for Qwen3-1.7B from Table 6 demonstrating strong bidirectional steering
• Qwen3.5-9B evolver achieves highest harness-updating gain on SkillsBench (3.8 pp), exceeding Claude Opus 4.6 (2.3 pp) and Qwen3-235B (1.5 pp)finding0.750
  Case demonstrating that model scale does not predict harness-updating quality
• Qwen3-235B has SLR of 0.961 (nearly identical to Opus 4.6) yet HFR of only 0.350, with LPR of 0.022 vs. Opus 4.6's 0.177finding0.748
  Demonstrates that harness loading is necessary but not sufficient for harness benefit; cleanest separation of activation and adherence
• Qwen3-32B achieves a skill-load rate of 0.251, while Opus 4.6, Sonnet 4.6, and Qwen3-235B achieve SLR of 0.957–0.961finding0.747
  Quantifies harness activation failure for weak-tier models vs. strong-tier models
• Opus 4.6 achieves HFR of 0.757 while Qwen3-32B achieves HFR of only 0.142 on SkillsBenchfinding0.743
  Quantifies harness adherence failure gap between strong and weak tier models
• Qwen3-235B achieves only 1.1 pp harness-benefit on SkillsBench despite 4.7% base pass rate, near Qwen3-32B's 0.0% baselinefinding0.741
  Shows that SB low-base regime is variable; similar starting points can yield very different harness-benefit