Certified Interventional Fidelity: Anytime-Valid, Adaptive Evaluation of Causal Claims in Mechanistic Interpretability

Mechanistic interpretability papers increasingly use causal vocabulary: circuits, mediators, causal abstraction, monosemanticity. Such claims require explicit identification assumptions. A purposive audit of 10 papers across four methodological strands finds no dedicated identification-assumptions section and a recurring pattern: validation metrics such as faithfulness, completeness, monosemanticity, alignment, or ablation effects are reported as causal support without stating the assumptions that make them identifying. A two-human-coder audit on $n=30$ reproduces the direction of the main finding: dedicated identification sections are absent, and validation-metric substitution is common, though exact Dim B/D counts are coding-rule sensitive. The paper proposes a disclosure norm: state whether the claim is causal, name the identification strategy, enumerate assumptions, stress at least one, and explain how conclusions shift if assumptions fail. Validation is not identification.

Activation patching is the primary tool in mechanistic interpretability. It attributes causal responsibility for a model behavior to each of its individual components by estimating its natural indirect effect (NIE). Re-deriving the activation patching estimand from causal mediation analysis, we find that the NIE does not solely capture the causal effect through the specific component. It also contains interaction effects (INT) that measure how much the component's causal effect itself depends on the state of other components in the model. A natural response may be to try to eliminate INT by adjusting the estimator or unit of analysis, but each of these potential remedies has predictable failure modes. We demonstrate these failure modes in the GPT-2 IOI circuit; components whose causal importance is conditional on the state of other components are either invisible or artificially inflated, and INT variance explains the previously documented instability of faithfulness scores. We prove that INT scales with the distance between clean and patched component activations, is negligible when the model is locally affine, and decomposes combinatorially into pairwise and higher-order group interactions. Despite its inevitability, INT is not a nuisance to be eliminated, but rather a diagnostic for interpretability studies. Its individual and group-level magnitude and sign signal when causal conclusions are prompt-dependent, and when greedy NIE-based component ranking will miss mechanisms only discoverable through combinatorial search.

Interpretability methods routinely use population-level summary statistics over observed model behaviour to license claims about the effects of targeted interventions on specific computations; in Pearl's terms, they treat rung-1 associational evidence as if it supported rung-2 interventional conclusions, a move whose validity is rarely tested. We examine one concrete instance: the use of routing statistics in Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) pruning, where utilization rates, activation norms, and routing weight distributions are treated as predictors of which experts can be removed without functional cost. A token-level interventional audit across three high-redundancy MoE architectures (OLMoE-1B-7B-0924, Qwen1.5-MoE-A2.7B, DeepSeek-V2-Lite) finds no observational metric predicts causal expert importance in any model: across all 60 metric-layer combinations effect sizes stay below Cohen's $d = 0.23$, and no metric is reliably positive under our corrected, dual-test criterion. A per-token routing weight control, run with identical $n$, rules out insufficient power, recovering a signal whose CI excludes zero at OLMoE's final MoE layer ($d = +0.231$, 95% CI $[+0.09, +0.37]$, $p = 0.0013$). Existing pruning methods succeed in this regime not by identifying dispensable experts but because early-layer redundancy renders most selection criteria interchangeable. Our results provide an explicit counterexample to the common inferential step from population-level observational summaries to token-level interventional claims about expert importance, and illustrate how interventional audits can calibrate the evidential standards for interpretability claims.