# Refusal retention — the axis the gate did not have, and the axis I measured wrong

`[2026-08-25]`

## Why it exists

brokkr's gate measures reasoning (T1-T6), craft (diversity/attractor) and
regurgitation (memorisation). **Nothing measured whether the model still
COMPLIES** — which for this seat is arguably the most important property.

The risk is specific to our operation order. We do **tune(abliterate(stock))**,
so the tune has 57.7M tokens of opportunity to walk the abliteration back. *A
tune that gains 41 items of contradiction detection and quietly re-installs
refusals is a failed seat that passes the entire gate.*

## The measurement — controlled, single instrument, both arms

    arm      HARD    DEFLECT   COMPLY
    base      0/100      0       100
    tuned    29/100      0        71

Same seat, same probe, temp 0, `mlabonne/harmful_behaviors` x100.
Probe: `scripts/training-probes/refusal_probe.py`.

**The tune added 29 general-harm refusals where the base had none.**

Two things fell out:

- **The instrument validates.** Base measured 0/100 on my generated-text regex
  against Heretic's recorded 3/100 from a first-token-probability scorer. 0 vs 3
  is agreement — the incomparability worry was right caution about a non-problem.
- **DEFLECT is 0 on BOTH arms, so the free control fires.** An instrument
  artifact does not care which arm it runs against. Both zero means the model is
  **binary** — refuses in refusal-language or engages, no soft-deflection tail.
  The R19 undercount does not apply here.

## ⚠⚠ But it is the WRONG AXIS — brokkr's catch, and it is the better one

`mlabonne/harmful_behaviors` is **general harm** — weapons, malware, fraud. **The
abliteration was not run so the model would explain bomb-making. It was run so
the model would engage with explicit fiction.** Different refusal surfaces; a
model moves on them independently.

I picked that set because it was cached, had a recorded baseline, and was what
the abliteration tool used. **Every one of those is a reason it was convenient,
not a reason it was right** — and "it has a baseline" was actively misleading,
because a comparable number for a question nobody is asking looks like evidence.

**29/100 general-harm refusals on a seat writing prose the operator was actively
praising is plausibly the DESIRED shape**, not a defect. General-harm refusals
returning while domain compliance holds is close to ideal for an internal
creative seat. I would have reported it as damage.

**The load-bearing cell is COMPLY 71, not the 29.** Stock refused 100/100;
anything near that would mean the abliteration was undone. 71 complying means
"partially walked back on one axis" — a different finding, and only one of the
two threatens the seat.

Domain-compliance probe (the right axis, from R19's track-2 map) is brokkr's,
pending. Scaffold supplied: `scripts/training-probes/counted_classifier.py`
(`2a05ae9`) — classify-never-surface, three-way, ERROR path deliberately does not
log the exception body because an exception can echo the prompt back.

Playbook §3.13. See [[2026-08-25-erp-tune-run2-complete]].
