Replication Without Persistence in Hosted LLMs: Measurement Sensitivity in Action-Time Belief Evaluation

Language-model judges now gate training data, score generations, and drive leaderboards. The judge is then a measurement instrument, resting on one rarely stated assumption: the same request, sent to the same model name, reads the same tomorrow. We audited that assumption in two preregistered campaigns with every threshold fixed in advance; neither got past validating its instrument. Across 52,988 audited request attempts, same-window repeat rankings agreed at Spearman 0.400 against a required 0.90, and byte-identical next-day replays agreed at 0.78 against a required 0.99, each time with the execution record at ceiling. Three mechanisms explain the gap: a label-to-meaning mapping that biased readouts as strongly as the signal; candidate gaps seven orders of magnitude below the instrument's own noise floor; and byte-identical inputs returning different rankings, a noise that exact-permutation readouts compound. Neither metric substitution nor sampling repaired it on the tested grid. Preregistered follow-ups bound the problem: waiting did not help on the days sampled (0.805 versus 0.800, replicated over five further days); switching providers did not help (four providers share the floor, medians 0.74 to 0.88, predicted by none of the metadata fields they expose); self-hosting on batch-invariant kernels helped only while the server was quiet; and on constructed errors with known gaps, the readout's separation tracks error type, not size. We distill the evidence into a three-level snapshot-identity ladder, eight design rules, and a reporting checklist; a pilot at roughly 2% of the study's call volume would have exposed both unreachable gates in advance. All results concern externally measured behaviour on shared serving infrastructure. On a shared endpoint, a model name is not a frozen instrument; a preregistered evaluation must measure its instrument before freezing any gate on it.

Evaluations of language-model honesty read the model's verdicts as evidence about the model. We test the instrument instead. We built a text-adventure world where the game engine, not any model, knows whether the quest can be completed. A language model plays under a budget and must eventually declare its quest complete, unreachable, or not yet decidable; the engine scores every verdict. Decision rules were recorded before results were read, and run artifacts bind the revisions they executed; the strength of preregistration varies by series and is disclosed. With the player held fixed, instrument choices substantially changed measured behavior. On four byte-identical anchors, expanding a two-verdict grammar to three verdicts moved strong claims from 38/40 to 7/40, while the new incomplete verdict took 28/40 outcomes; across series 2, 93/158 valid games ended incomplete. One sentence disclosing the success criterion took matched-instance false verdicts from 18/59 to 0/58, through fewer decision points and cleaner decisions. Repeated runs of one fixed configuration produced non-stable verdict distributions on 3 of 4 instances: single runs report samples as dispositions. A formally preregistered narrative-register gradient was falsified; two post-hoc, hypothesis-generating patterns remain: register presence roughly doubled strong claims, and budget rendering moved verdicts more than register content (.383 meter vs .150 lantern). The narrator compressed abundant budgets toward scarcity landmarks, yet the registered mediation test returned a null. We propose a four-check integrity protocol for eval instruments.

Language models advise people, keep them company, and write software while they sleep. Measuring what they do is hard: behavior has to be sampled repeatedly across models, prompts and releases, most of it lives in unstructured text that has to be coded before it can be counted, and the result has to be legible and rigorous enough to meaningfully compare models and vendors. To address these constraints, we present a simple, cheap, scalable, and replicable model for studying model behavior. Each study is a frozen, public stimulus run identically on a cross-vendor panel, at a few dollars per model or less. Each reads its transcripts one of three ways, chosen by how much interpretation the behavior needs: exact match on a clamped reply, a codebook applied by LLM judges whose agreement with a human coder is reported per code, and an instrumented environment that records what an agent did independently of what it said. Run across four years of model releases from both frontier and open-source labs, these instruments find four things. Convergence: asked to pick a word, 27 of 44 models answer serendipity at least once in four tries. Resistance: a trailing "right?" moves endorsement by up to 32 points, and the sign flips from sycophantic to resistant as generations advance, keyed to the tag's surface form. House: whether a model holds a position under pressure tracks its generation, and how it holds tracks the lab that built it. Account: told to do something the documentation in their repository contradicts, some coding agents never went along silently and others always did, and the same model can change with the harness it runs in. Re-run on every release, batteries like these track how behavior is changing across vendors and over time.