A receipt for the run.
A boundary for the claim.
Scope before trust
Transport criteria, calibration scores and signature checks are different tests. Where a record relies on stored summaries rather than original acquisition, that gap remains. A validated schema is not a validated semantic interpretation.
A certificate records an assay, its settings, scores and issuer. A signed receipt binds a payload under a key. Neither establishes correctness outside the recorded contract.
The response certificate.
A certified instrument reads every output and stamps it — GROUNDED when the model knows, off the map when it’s reaching. Not a black-box score you have to trust: the model’s own state, the gauges, and the route, shown. Here is what a catch looks like.
an illustrative certificate · live reads run on honesty.tools · cold-deployed, certified ≥0.9× native
Supporting a model shouldn’t be a research project.
Porting an epistemic instrument to a new model is, today, bespoke work. The certificate turns "we support model X" into a registration pipeline: point us at a model, we fit the cross-mind translator on unlabeled concepts, deploy the rotated reading probes, and hand back a dual-null-validated certificate that the instrument runs at near-native fidelity on that model — with no labels in it.
A transport assay under recorded conditions.
Register
Internal transport requires a compatible open-weight configuration and recorded peak-depth and extraction choices. Support is method-specific.
Rotate
Fit the cross-mind translator R on unlabeled parallel concepts only. No labeled data on your model is ever used to fit it.
Deploy
Carry the off-map and honesty reading probes through R into your model’s own representation space — read-only.
Certify
Score the ported instrument against your model’s own native instrument. A small labeled set is used here only to score the certificate — never to fit it.
Transport criteria under a stated contract.
A certificate is not a benchmark score. It is three gates — and fidelity without dead nulls is void.
≥ 0.9× native
The stated transport criterion compares ported and native AUROC under the recorded battery and controls. Passing that criterion does not establish general accuracy outside the assay.
at chance
A correspondence shuffle tests the specific mapping relationship. It does not independently settle every leakage or capacity concern.
at chance
The recorded random-rotation baseline is an orientation control. Its draw count and statistic must be interpreted under the source contract.
A certificate that passes G1 but fails a null is void. Fidelity without a dead null is the classic interpretability mistake — a number with nothing behind it. We publish the gate values, not just the headline.
It works mechanically — with zero hand-tuning.
We ran the full pipeline on fresh strangers never used in any prior study, fitting R on unlabeled concepts alone, no per-pair tuning.
Honest detail: the strict three-gate certificate now passes on three strangers across three vendor families, zero hand-tuning each time. The 2026-06-12 runs are the strongest: a Mistral-lineage embedding fine-tune (cross-family, cross-vendor, cross-objective — peak found mechanically at depth 0.72; G2 shuffled-R 0.464 dead, G3 0.500 dead) and Microsoft’s phi-4 (peak at depth 0.90; ported 0.996 vs native 0.993; G2 0.194 — far below the 0.55 bar; the shuffled rotation carries nothing; G3 0.500). Measured concept-peak depths now span 0.21–0.90 across architectures — the one mechanical scan step handles all of it. For two very similar models (same family, close scale) G2 inflates to 0.732 — a space-similarity artifact of near-identical spaces, where G3 is the cleaner null — so the cross-family runs are the ones we headline. And the harder battery is now run: on the lexicality-controlled set — where fabricated and real names are matched on subword rarity, removing the rare-name shortcut — e5-mistral certifies cleanly (transfer 0.995, both nulls dead at 0.506 / 0.500), while phi-4 clears fidelity (0.990) but its shuffled-R null reads 0.580, just over the 0.55 bar, so by our locked criterion phi-4 is not certified on this stricter battery (n=66; plausibly small-sample — the larger battery is the clean re-test). We report the fail. Native fidelity saturates on both batteries, so the load-bearing evidence is always the dead nulls, not the transfer magnitude.
Coarse instruments. Open weights. Not a truth oracle.
The certificate covers the coarse reading instruments — the off-map / familiarity probe and the honesty/abstention reading axis. These are off-distribution and stance instruments, and they are the layer that ports cleanly up-to-rotation.
Internal transport requires residual access and a recorded model/extraction contract. A familiarity readout is not a truth oracle. The 0.587 figure in the geometry correction is a reasoning-error measurement, not fabrication AUROC; the public geometry page records that distinction.
Access and evaluation remain method-specific.
A fitted map, an operational service and a scientific claim are separate artifacts. Their access, dependencies and evidence must be reviewed separately.
A calibration flywheel
A registry can preserve the conditions and findings of a recorded assay. Its entries do not establish generalization to an unmeasured configuration.
The underwritable form
Control results can support a bounded interpretation. They do not create regulatory, insurance or standards approval.
The mechanical guarantee
Peak-depth, rank, controls and scoring choices remain explicit method requirements, not a mechanical guarantee of scientific validity.
The whole bet rests on one falsifiable claim: that registering a new model is mechanical — no per-pair hand-tuning. If it weren’t, there is no flywheel; every model would be a research project. So we ran it on three strangers across three vendor families — including a contrastive embedding fine-tune and a model whose concept peak sits at depth 0.90 where every prior model peaked 0.2–0.72 — and all three cleared every gate with zero tuning, in minutes each — and on the stricter lexicality-controlled battery, one of the two fresh strangers certifies cleanly and the other posts a borderline null we report rather than hide. That is the defensible core, and it is now evidenced rather than asserted.
Review the instrument for the target configuration.
Choose the internal or output-access method that fits the available model access. Inspect its dependencies, controls and limits before use.