The checked-in harness was run end to end through the shim on a newly
generated story, which is both a check that it works and an independent
replication.
The finding the change is for held: across two runs, none of the four
control memories names the protagonist and all four treatment memories
do. The length finding held too — controls at 34, 89, 105 and 107 words,
a four-fold spread with no budget stated anywhere, against 54 and 55
under MEMORY_MAX_WORDS.
One claim did not replicate, and the writeups now say so. Run 1 produced
two control memories in two different persons, which is the reported
complaint exactly, and plan/18 presented that as reproduced. Run 2's
controls were both "the player", consistently. Drifting between second
and third person is therefore something a model sometimes does, observed
once, not something it does every time. The naming gap is the durable
result and the writeups now lead with that instead.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01NPyQN926gkZTAYfgugcaok
Claude
71b24b6229