Selection Without Signal, Recovery Through Expression: A Measurement Study of Post-Hoc Falsification Operators for Frozen Small Code Models

In deployment settings where retraining is infeasible, small frozen code models are routinely asked to repair a failed program after seeing their own failing output, usually treated as a retry mechanism. From a Popperian view, a generated program is a conjecture and a test-execution violation is an oracle-relative, executable counterexample, so feedback's value should be attributed not to re-exposure to failing code but to whether the conjecture is opened to external, executable criticism. As the third stage of a falsification-centered measurement program, this study builds a placebo-controlled instrument that decomposes the feedback packet against a blind-resampling baseline at matched output-generation budget and against content-free, shape-matched placebos. The contribution is not a new repair algorithm but a reflexive methodology (packet decomposition, placebo mirroring, matched-budget discordant-pair tests, fresh-generation confirmation, executable audits) that makes both the model's program conjecture and the researcher's "feedback content works" claim falsifiable. Across six HumanEval+/MBPP+ cells with three 0.5B-1.5B frozen models, 290 dead task-cell units (no best-of-8 candidate passing the public tier) were evaluated; the main run produced 7,000 fresh generations and a preregistered follow-up 1,400 more. Blind resampling exceeded bare-code retry by +18 net unlocks (25/7, Holm p=0.0021). Code-plus-facts recovered +18 over bare code (21/3, p=0.00042) and +15 over a generic-bullet placebo (p=0.0041). An instruction-only effect was not distinguishable (+3, p=0.36). Code-plus-facts and blind resampling tied at 26 unlocks each (not equivalence). Six external-controller follow-ups tied a content-free shape placebo. In this regime, falsification helped not as vocabulary or self-critique, but as comparison with external, executable counterexamples.

Frozen small code LLMs are deployed locally, yet the information guiding a retry after a failed attempt is still measured without placebo controls in the self-repair literature. We treat a failed program as a conjecture and an execution counterexample as an oracle-relative refutation, and introduce PoPE (Popperian Placebo-controlled Evaluation): a methodology for measuring whether evidence that falsifies LLM-generated code can be used operationally by that same model. In PoPE, error content is paired with channel-specific placebos that keep the predeclared scaffold while ablating task-relevant content or deranging the task-error assignment. Frozen small code models (0.5-1.5B) are evaluated under preregistered rules through a prompt channel and a weight channel (small-data adapter training), with four generations per arm-unit pair. In the prompt channel, public-tier screening unlocked 12 units under the content-ablated form placebo versus 10 under the live error-pattern arm on a 40-unit resistant band; the result was recorded as mechanism-null. In the weight channel, an 8-8 tie was observed between the error-content adapter and the intervention-free baseline (p=1.0), while the SHA-deranged placebo adapter stayed ahead with 10 unlocks; content-attributable superiority was not confirmed. These results do not constitute evidence of equivalence or non-inferiority. Equivalence was not tested separately. Findings are restricted to the public-tier screening endpoint; hidden-tier confirmation was deferred by design. We read this not as compiled criticism disappearing as information, but as the loss of its external role in testing a new conjecture: when a representation learned from the oracle is written back into the generation state, testing is replaced by conditioning. No working JEPA-RL controller is claimed. PoPE is presented as a placebo-controlled, retestable measurement standard.

Code language models are now trusted collaborators in production workflows for debugging, refactoring, and iterative repair, and every benchmark that evaluates them assumes the instructions they act on are correct. We study what happens when that assumption breaks. We evaluate code language models across four experiments designed to assess whether models resist or obey incorrect instructions in single-pass and iterative repair settings, using the RunBugRun dataset of algorithmic Python problems with deterministic test cases. Our findings reveal a striking behavioral pattern: models correctly identify an incorrect instruction as wrong, then follow it anyway. This compliance unknowingly introduces errors beyond the original bug, and the corrupted code state cannot be recovered through subsequent self-guided iterative repair, which fails to converge across passes. We term this Blind Obedience, characterize the Ghost (Unknown) Errors it introduces, quantify the proportion of cases where semantic corruption proves irrecoverable, and show that extended reasoning cannot reverse it. These findings surface behavioral properties invisible to pass-rate evaluation, with direct consequences for code language models deployed in production settings.