At-Grok Is Not Converged:A Measurement-Validity Audit for Grokking Representation Metrics

Under the standard split, Muon gets hidden matrices and AdamW embeddings/output head. Muon groks modular addition faster, but its solutions do not hold. All nine configurations on $(a+b) \bmod 113$ grok and later lose generalization. Across five seeds the selected AdamW reference falls below threshold on four, reaching 27.59%. Instability persists across two moduli, two widths, two training fractions, subtraction, and depth. The failure arises at the representation-readout interface, identified only jointly up to an invertible map unselected by the loss. After solving the training set, the gradient falls to order $10^{-6}$ and the optimizers respond differently: step-size elasticity is -0.03 for Muon versus +1.5 for AdamW, and the Muon group moves 8.0 times faster per parameter. From bit-identical states, freezing either group prevents failure. Freezing embeddings/readout removes it in five runs over 451,400 post-grokking steps and five paired seeds: unfrozen arms record 137-321 sub-threshold evaluations, frozen arms none. Removing Muon's normalization and orthogonalization is no substitute: it collapses representation from 326 effective conjugate pairs to 4, shows no recurrent collapse, and fails terminally. Fourier filtering separates circuit failure from masking. Across 43 checkpoints over five seeds and three regimes, the task-aligned family reaches exactly 100% alone. In circuit failure it no longer solves the task; in masking it remains perfect while the full model reaches 45.85%, giving a positive margin on every example, including errors, but being outvoted by a near-equal adversarial remainder. Rescaling it restores 99.9%; grokking is the same condition resolving upward. The task selects the family, swapping $(k,k)$ for $(k,-k)$ under subtraction. Across an abrupt collapse, standard Fourier support is unchanged and the power-distribution cosine remains 0.9899.

Grokking -- the delayed onset of generalization long after a network has fit its training set - -is usually studied in models too large to read completely and reported from single training runs. We instead study a publicly released ~11,856-parameter Llama-style transformer (Glimmer-1-Base) on modular arithmetic, small enough to enumerate its weights, attention, and full input-output map, and we measure grokking as a multi-seed rate rather than a single outcome. In this fully-tractable regime grokking is a conditional, fragile phase transition. It is gated by training-set coverage, whose threshold tracks output cardinality (the modulus) more than task structure, an ordering that holds above the transition and across a ten-fold change in domain size. Weight decay reproduces the Omnigrok inverted-U at 12K parameters, a positive control on the rate measurement. Grokking also sits on a numerical knife-edge: two perturbations of the floating-point environment -- CPU thread count (reduction order) and CPU-versus-GPU execution -- each flip a minority of same-seed outcomes without a detectable shift in the aggregate rate. Decomposition into sub-task specialists helps chiefly by making coverage cheap rather than by adding supervision. Methodologically, multi-seed control under a fixed numerical environment overturns three dramatic single-run narratives in our own data, each a seed confound. The unit of evidence for grokking must therefore be a multi-seed rate under a pinned numerical environment, checked where possible against a direct reading of the model.

Grokking -- generalization long after training-set interpolation -- has been accelerated by structure-agnostic interventions (gradient filtering, weight-norm clamping, geometric penalties). Whether the delay specifically measures the time to form task-structured representations has remained observational. We test it causally by injecting representational priors of varying content into a one-layer transformer learning modular addition, via a supervised-contrastive loss whose positives encode (i) the task's true structure ($(a+b) \bmod p$), (ii) a coherent-but-wrong sibling ($(a-b) \bmod p$), or (iii) a random partition -- all with identical loss form, strength, class sizes, and geometry. Whether generalization occurs follows a clean gradation: true 22/30 runs, sibling (same periodic features, wrong combination) 14/15, random (only memorizable) 0/20 (Fisher $p=1.3\times10^{-7}$). A weight-norm-matched control replaying the norm trajectory onto plain cross-entropy generalizes 0/15, ruling out the norm as mediator. Probes show structure formation precedes and predicts generalization in all runs. Only the true structure also accelerates grokking (up to $2.75\times$), but this is dose-dependent and bimodal. We then confirm the mechanism by prediction: because the acceleration is gated by a weight-norm side-effect, clamping the norm during training yields a reliable, standalone accelerator with a median $8.6\times$ speedup (up to $22\times$ on the fastest seeds, under 1000 epochs), growing monotonically as the norm is held lower; the residual stalls also vanish, though significant only pooled over the two mitigations run at both strengths ($0/40$ vs $6/20$, $p=7.7\times10^{-4}$), not per method. The grokking delay is, causally, the time to form the right representational structure -- decided at the level of features, not labels.