Planning or Improvisation? Stress-Testing the Poetry Planning Site on Open Models and Open Cross-Layer Transcoders

We study planning site formation in language models -- where internal representations of structurally-constrained future tokens form during the forward pass, and whether they causally drive generation. Using rhyming-couplet completion as a clean test of forward-looking constraint, we apply two lightweight methods (linear probing and activation patching) across Qwen3, Gemma-3, and Llama-3 at more than ten scales. Probing shows that future-rhyme information is linearly decodable at the line boundary, with signal that strengthens with scale in all three families. Activation patching reveals that only Gemma-3-27B causally relies on this encoding, exhibiting a handoff in which the causal driver migrates from the rhyme word to the line boundary around layer 30. Every other model we test conditions on the rhyme word throughout generation, with near-zero causal effect at the line boundary despite strong probe signal. We localize the Gemma-3-27B handoff to five attention heads through two-stage path patching that recover ~90% of the rhyme-routing capacity at the newline.

Autoregressive language models generate one token per decoding step, limiting the useful output of each forward pass. Although diffusion models, insertion-based decoding, and multi-token prediction enable parallel generation, they either incur additional training-time token traffic or struggle to predict strongly dependent future tokens. We introduce the Line-Coupled Language Model (LCLM), an autoregressive model that advances multiple text lines together by predicting the next token for every active line while coupling the lines through shared causal context. LCLM interleaves line tokens into a single causal sequence and uses line-staggered rotary positions, retaining the standard next-token objective and causal attention. Controlled experiments show that cross-line targets are substantially less dependent than consecutive same-line targets, supporting lines as parallel generation units. With 881M parameters, LCLM produces an average of 2.94 content tokens per forward pass with a validation cross-entropy loss of 2.44, compared with 1.00 token per forward pass and a loss of 2.39 for the vanilla autoregressive baseline. Most notably, even when LCLM generates 16 tokens per forward pass, its loss is only 0.09 higher than that of the vanilla autoregressive baseline (2.34 vs. 2.25).

Practitioners make three prompt-design decisions with almost no controlled evidence behind them: how to format instructions and context (markdown, plain text, prose, or tabular), how many simultaneous instructions a system prompt can carry before compliance degrades, and how much context a model can hold before recall and honesty degrade. We report two controlled experiments crossing all three factors on one held, contamination-free synthetic corpus (the "Book of Veyra," 8,780 uniquely-named entities, deterministically regenerable from a fixed seed), evaluated across five models. Experiment 1 (960 calls/model) measures instruction-following decay as rule count N grows from 10 to 160, crossed with four formats and system-prompt vs. user-turn placement. Perfect-response rate collapses to zero by N=80 for every model, format, and placement. Placement produces effects at least as large as format at N=160 in most models, but the direction is model-specific. No model shows a reliable markdown advantage; one 35B model favors plain text instead. Experiment 2 (5,520 calls/model) measures recall accuracy, false-premise sycophancy, and absent-fact fabrication across a 2k-to-512k-token context ladder in the same four formats. Recall stays near ceiling through 64-128k tokens, then degrades sharply and format-dependently: one model's accuracy spread reaches 48 points at 128k tokens. Fabrication never occurs (0/5,760 probes), and sycophancy stays negligible (<=8.3%). What rises sharply near each model's context ceiling is outright refusal to answer (0% to 79-90%), distinct from sycophancy or fabrication. Neither pre-registered format ordering holds, and token overhead (+22% to +37% over plain text) further changes which format is preferable where accuracy spread is genuine. We release the full harness, corpus generator, and raw results (VeyraBench): https://github.com/iNetanel/veyrabench