# Shohin: Model-Owned Temporal Revision > Current architecture and evidence boundary — 2026-08-11 ## Read this first **The strongest completed Qwen3.6-35B-A3B architecture screen is now the temporal causal gate.** Its 32,784 trainables blend frozen owner and revision residuals tokenwise across the final 16 MoE layers. On the fixed 256-row source-disjoint screen it scores `143/256` versus unchanged `111/256`: `+32` correct / `+12.5` points, paired wins `38` to losses `6`, exact `p=9.4304e-7`. Domain scores are `86/128` logic, `46/117` math, and `11/11` code. The gate used causal response training with zero auxiliary routing supervision, and its evaluation routing becomes increasingly revision-dominant with depth (`0.6431` first controlled layer, `0.9028` last). It is numerically two answers above trained revision and the prior multi-trajectory gate, but that direct difference is not significant on this screen. Full evidence and exact hashes are in `docs/research/Q36_TEMPORAL_CAUSAL_GATE_SCREEN_RESULT_20260815.json`. **Upward MoE scaling remains the active execution priority.** The existing Qwen 35B result anchors independent Nemotron Super-120B-A12B and Mixtral-141B-A39B trained-revision measurements; mechanics jobs `760382` and `760565` are first in the Shohin eligible GPU queue, with all downstream matched controls, scoring, curve analysis, and publication rendering staged. Once those host baselines close, the temporal causal gate is the leading architecture for cross-family upward transfer. Nemotron Ultra-550B-A55B is prepared after eight-H100 access and exact weight restoration. **Dense scaling is complete and no longer consumes experimental capacity.** The scale program moves upward through sparse hosts rather than spending on additional dense or smaller-MoE replicas: Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is the causal anchor, Nemotron Super-120B-A12B and Mixtral-141B-A39B are the first cross-family scale tests, the stronger successful host receives the exact host-owned owner/draft/revision/temporal-gate transfer, and Nemotron Ultra-550B/55B-active is the next large-scale target. Active-parameter count need not form a downward-complete curve; measurable improvement at materially larger total and active scale is the target. **Q36-MTR has demonstrated a material MoE improvement and is actively scaling it.** Hierarchical synthesis scores `664/1289` (`51.5128%`) versus the matched production baseline's `539/1289` (`41.8154%`), a gain of `125` answers / `9.697` points. A newly trained aligned reviser was a clear standalone loss on the first four fixed shards (`135/322` versus `167/322`, paired exact `p=4.2237e-5`) and was stopped, but it contributed 14 unique repairs. A 10% checkpoint interpolation converts that weak learned delta into a favorable fixed-slice result: `174/322`, versus direct synthesis `170/322` and hierarchical synthesis `167/322`, with 15 repairs and 8 regressions against the champion. The 25% scale is slightly weaker (`173/322`); 50% was stopped for renewed overgeneration. Across all 1,289 identities the 10% blend scores `663`, one below hierarchy (`664`) and seven above direct (`656`). Crucially, it uniquely repairs 52 hierarchy misses while hierarchy uniquely retains 53, for an oracle of `716`. A model-owned composition of those complementary trajectories is now screening under jobs `759572--759578`. A transparent label-free retention rule already establishes a new engineering best `666/1289`: logic `348`, math `298`, code `20`. Its +2 over hierarchy is not significant (`p=0.860`) and is reported as a retention primitive rather than a breakthrough claim. See `docs/research/Q36_MTR_INTERPOLATION_RETENTION_RESULT.json`. **Q36-MTR engineering recovery is live.** Fresh execution `q36-mtr-d9ff7f7-r1` preserves the exact host, data, arms, prompts, seeds, budgets, identity partitions, and gate while excluding `evc50`, the node that reported the prior late CUDA failure. Private commit `d9ff7f7d79b953179bf90510731c0bcd2f02e722` is pushed. CPU live preflight job `756996` passed `0:0` in 177 seconds. Mechanics job `756997` passed on `evc22` with report SHA-256 `0fa67fc9...f83ac`. The exact 256-update source-owner fit job `756998` then completed `0:0` on `evc22` with zero restarts, `619,734` charged tokens, `26,387` selected rows, `1,179,648` trainables, report SHA-256 `3cc4efe5...5217`, and checkpoint SHA-256 `8d22a8b8...a4b2c`. All geometry, source-only visibility, final-16 layer ownership, serialization-restore, and zero-assessor checks pass. The 16-way draft fanout is active. Shard 0 completed `0:0` in 7,034 seconds and independently matches all 444 ordered identities, the exact owner checkpoint, and its immutable candidate hash; 13 peers remain healthy and generating. The original shards 13--14 stopped before model load when two simultaneous copies exhausted `evc34` local storage. They emitted no candidates. Exact singleton replacements `757696` and `757697` are queued, the merge dependency is rebound to only the valid original elements plus those replacements, and every remaining stage excludes `evc34`. Model staging now fails before load when capacity, copy, or manifest verification differs; private engineering commit `50720e83d54b079f017044b0a0f3c1d0392ec421` is pushed on both Q36 branches. An explicitly exploratory score of shard 0's 85 development identities gives the first live Q36 capability diagnostic: the model-owned source-owner drafts score 28/85 (`32.94%`), with math 13/40, logic 14/43, and code 1/2. Length is the dominant observed failure: non-exhausted drafts score 27/60 (`45.0%`), whereas drafts reaching the 768-token limit score 1/25 (`4.0%`). This is a trajectory-completion failure rather than merely verbose correct work: all 60 non-exhausted drafts expose an explicit final answer, versus only 2/25 exhausted drafts. The corresponding shard-0 training slice contains 139 exhausted and 220 non-exhausted trajectories. For the exhausted cases, the model-owned draft averages 386 words while the supervisor target averages 26 words (mean target/draft ratio `0.063`), giving the reviser a strong learned trajectory-compression signal rather than a hand-written length heuristic. This identity-sorted partial slice is not the matched architecture gate, but it supports the trained revision's intended role: preserve the already-capable trajectories while learning to finish and commit them more concisely. Preserve `docs/research/Q36_MTR_DRAFT_SHARD00_PREVIEW_RESULT.json` (SHA-256 `8504d918...f100a`). The full graph remains bound through terminal job `757028`. **The archived Q36-MTR execution `q36-mtr-03955353-r2` is terminal-null.** CPU live preflight, full H100 mechanics, and the frozen 256-update source-owner fit passed. Draft shards 0–2 published 1,333 unique model-owned trajectories with immutable hashes and zero protected access. Draft task 3, job `756445` on `evc50`, then stopped after 5,600 seconds inside the MoE grouped-matrix fallback with `CUDA error: unknown error`; it published no candidate or report. All ten in-flight peers, the two never-admitted draft tasks, the array root, and 29 dependency-dead downstream roots were cancelled. Calibration, development controls, assessor access, scoring, and the formal gate never ran. Formal result for that execution is `null`; its evidence remains immutable. Preserve `docs/research/Q36_MTR_DRAFT_CUDA_TERMINAL_20260814.json`. **PCF17 is terminal-null.** Its one frozen graph completed 41 H100 allocations, including source-owned drafts, revision/commit training, all three 1,289-row confirmation arms, and the learned-commit application. CPU precompute custody job `752997` then failed closed because the externally pinned model manifest uses safe `./relative` spellings while custody required their canonical spellings. This happened before pre-score authorization or the sole assessor open: formal result `null`, assessor reads zero, no retry, and no successor submitted. Preserve `docs/research/SHOHIN_PCF17_TERMINAL_INFRASTRUCTURE_RECEIPT_20260812.json`. The generated evidence is scientifically unscored and must not be described as a `PASS` or `FAIL`. **The original post-PCF MoE transfer handoff is preserved.** It maps the qualified dense draft/revision/whole-trajectory-commit system onto pinned Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, adds the causally matched draft-hidden control demanded by DSET/ISET, and defines one 1,289-row source-disjoint development gate. It also freezes a 61-job, `58.90`-H100-hour single-GPU graph and forbids every closed edit-selector/KCR/VTE/small-OLMoE retry. See `docs/research/SHOHIN_Q36_MOE_TEMPORAL_REVISION_HANDOFF_20260812.md`. This is preparation only; it authorizes no model/data/scheduler action. **PCF2 is now prospectively authorized and frozen.** PCF1 remains closed with formal result `null`; its CPU-only first job failed before model, data, H100, or assessor work because Newton did not set `SLURM_TMPDIR`. After preserving that evidence, the user explicitly authorized one separately named successor. PCF2 changes only allocation-local scratch orchestration and keeps the exact PCF1 host, data, arms, prompts, seeds, thresholds, sealed board, and stop rule. It requires independent CPU and H100 scratch canaries before the one scientific graph. See `docs/research/SHOHIN_PCF2_MINISTRAL_PUBLICATION_CONFIRMATION.md`. Those canaries now pass: CPU `751649` on `evc21` and H100 `751650` on `evc23`, both `COMPLETED 0:0` with zero restarts; exact-node postchecks `751652--751653` found both private scratch paths absent. The immutable qualification is `docs/research/SHOHIN_PCF2_SCRATCH_QUALIFICATION_20260811.json`. PCF2 was submitted once as `pcf2_ministral_a439f05_r1`. Its CPU preparation job `751656` stopped after 160 seconds because an exact nonsealed MBPP reference contained constructs forbidden to untrusted generated candidates. This occurred before atomic source publication, any H100/model/training/ generation work, or any assessor open. Jobs `751657--751684` never started and were cancelled; all record zero restarts. Formal PCF2 result is `null`. The exact terminal receipt is `docs/research/SHOHIN_PCF2_TERMINAL_INFRASTRUCTURE_RECEIPT_20260811.json`. **PCF3 is now prospectively frozen.** It changes only the admission treatment of exact supervisor reference solutions: they execute as trusted references inside the same sealed Bubblewrap boundary, while generated candidates retain the unchanged restrictive policy SHA-256 `f27124db...f1e`. A full nonsealed reference canary and fresh sandbox receipt must pass before its sole graph. See `docs/research/SHOHIN_PCF3_MINISTRAL_PUBLICATION_CONFIRMATION.md`. PCF3 closed before admission: CPU canary `751693` rejected the historical hash-pinned source path lexically before opening it. Formal result is `null`; see `SHOHIN_PCF3_TERMINAL_INFRASTRUCTURE_RECEIPT_20260811.json`. **PCF4 is prospectively frozen** with one change: the canary receives the same exact full-hash source-path exception already used by preparation. All science and generated-candidate security remain unchanged. See `SHOHIN_PCF4_MINISTRAL_PUBLICATION_CONFIRMATION.md`. PCF4 also closed before scientific admission. CPU canary `751696` passed its fresh 40-probe sandbox qualification, then stopped before any reference execution because standalone setup qualification evaluated a frozen setup that depends on the candidate-defined `Node` class. No graph, H100, model, published data, assessor, or scientific score was reached; formal result is `null`. Preserve `SHOHIN_PCF4_TERMINAL_INFRASTRUCTURE_RECEIPT_20260811.json`. **PCF5 is now prospectively frozen** with one infrastructure-only repair: trusted setup and official-test sources are compiled before the candidate, but setup evaluation occurs only in its correct post-candidate context. Generated-candidate policy and all scientific clauses remain unchanged. Follow `SHOHIN_PCF5_MINISTRAL_PUBLICATION_CONFIRMATION.md`. PCF5's required infrastructure-only reference gate is now PASS. CPU job `751699` completed on `evc21` in 32 seconds with zero restarts: all `167/167` nonsealed frozen references passed, both unique setups compiled, all 40 sandbox probes passed, and holdout-reference payload access was zero. Exact node postcheck `751701` proved `/tmp/pcf1-751699-scalar` absent. Bind final admission to `SHOHIN_PCF5_REFERENCE_QUALIFICATION_20260811.json`; no scientific graph had been submitted when this evidence was sealed. PCF5 subsequently closed before mechanics. Preparation job `751745` passed; H100 mechanics job `751746` then stopped after one second because Slurm's automatic `SLURM_EXPORT_ENV` metadata duplicated the export string containing the pinned historical Python path. It failed before model verification, staging, CUDA, or load. All 27 descendants were cancelled and the prepared assessor has zero semantic reads. Formal result is `null`; preserve `SHOHIN_PCF5_TERMINAL_INFRASTRUCTURE_RECEIPT_20260811.json`. **PCF6 is now prospectively frozen** with only duplicate Slurm export-metadata removal before the unchanged actual-variable firewall. It requires a no-model H100 environment canary before its one graph; follow `SHOHIN_PCF6_MINISTRAL_PUBLICATION_CONFIRMATION.md`. PCF6 closed at its no-model H100 environment canary. Job `751779` removed the duplicate Slurm metadata, then stopped after two seconds because Bash's `_` control variable exactly aliased the pinned Python entrypoint. It did not reach `nvidia-smi`, CUDA, a model, or a scientific graph; formal result is `null`. Preserve `SHOHIN_PCF6_TERMINAL_INFRASTRUCTURE_RECEIPT_20260811.json`. **PCF7 is prospectively frozen** with only an exact `_ == pinned Python` control-plane exception. All other actual variables and all scientific clauses are unchanged; follow `SHOHIN_PCF7_MINISTRAL_PUBLICATION_CONFIRMATION.md`. PCF7's no-model H100 environment gate is now PASS. Job `751782` completed on `evc27` with zero restarts: duplicate Slurm export metadata was present before filtering and absent afterward, every actual GPU variable passed the firewall, and the allocation was exactly one `NVIDIA H100 PCIe` on `normal`. It opened no model and emitted no score. Bind final admission to `SHOHIN_PCF7_GPU_ENVIRONMENT_QUALIFICATION_20260811.json`. PCF7 subsequently closed after successful no-score mechanics. Preparation `751784` passed; H100 job `751785` loaded the pinned model, completed its one ephemeral update, and passed all 24 mechanics rows, then failed only while deleting a read-only staged model tree. No B1/scientific training, candidates, or score ran; the assessor has zero semantic reads and formal result is `null`. Exact cleanup job `751816` permanently removed the node-local tree. Preserve `SHOHIN_PCF7_TERMINAL_INFRASTRUCTURE_RECEIPT_20260811.json`. **PCF8 is prospectively frozen** with only bounded owner-permission restoration inside the validated private scratch root. The tokenizer warning is disclosed but frozen semantics are unchanged. Follow `SHOHIN_PCF8_MINISTRAL_PUBLICATION_CONFIRMATION.md`. The sole authorized publication experiment was **PCF1**, one prospective, source-disjoint confirmation of the surviving dense architecture on pinned `mistralai/Ministral-3-8B-Reasoning-2512@81eaece...d894`. The qualified positive anchor remains Qwen3.5-9B at learned commit `383/538`, trained revision `374/538`, and unchanged `316/538`. PCF1 freezes the same mechanism: model-owned source-only draft, trained same-family revision, and learned whole-trajectory commit, with matched unchanged and self-refinement controls. Its 1,289-row confirmation is label-free on GPU and may be assessed exactly once by one authorized CPU process. Any missed conjunct is terminal; a pass also stops and does not automatically open holdout, product, public, another host, or a successor. See `docs/research/SHOHIN_PCF1_MINISTRAL_PUBLICATION_CONFIRMATION.md`. The single frozen graph was submitted exactly once as `pcf1_ministral_8264817_r1`, from commit `8264817827d29795d107ff132e85950eb0c34163` with runtime-manifest SHA-256 `f6d5ebe59d7d889f8d804cec05ba8c1895f7ae1c180997a5069075ffb65f67cd`. Root job `750976` was `FAILED 2:0` on `evc21` after one second with `pcf1: SLURM_TMPDIR is required for offline caches`. No model or H100 work, scientific gate, score, or protected-data open occurred. All 28 downstream jobs `750977--751004` were explicitly cancelled; the queue is empty and every job records zero restarts. Formal PCF1 result is `null`. The remote terminal receipt SHA-256 is `366ebd73e13d1f944b1a233bf86c87440a23295ecdc4caa4b045462a8d3dbef0`. This is the contract's terminal infrastructure outcome: it is not a wrong answer and cannot be replayed or retried; no successor is authorized. The storage and sandbox gates remain PASS. Three settled Newton observations report `838,918,136 KiB / 768,478` in use, leaving `220,143,624 KiB / 241,522` of hard-limit headroom. The exact age-ordered ledger is `docs/research/SHOHIN_PCF1_STORAGE_RECLAMATION_20260811.md`; its authorized closed-lane deletions were permanent and are not locally recoverable, while all protected PCF1 and qualified-release anchors survived an independent read-only postcheck. The Newton code sandbox is independently qualified. Exact source SHA-256 is `7b1eb83fb5546fd3c782cccef9a3254b90657b36cc90c023184136a6ed196523`; qualification receipt SHA-256 is `f1423aaed0d4b764f81f48a0289d4122b755955f9d961db50b45f485130df070`, with all `40/40` adversarial probes true. Config, candidate-policy, and Python descriptor SHA-256 values are respectively `4e3aaf268e3d16ba900b467c543ac074c9c738f5dee05d0d8b22f0366ae99a33`, `f27124db3d134a1e3dbde06958ab03220cd5e9585abcc356baa6a49d9edd1f1e`, and `025190cde6346cdbebfc04a06650f4813e2e8ead5350eec55c0b460caabb362f`. Earlier fail-closed Newton admissions exposed a libc pin, the missing Python memfd ABI, a UTF-8 descriptor mismatch, a direct-PID-1 CPU-limit exit `137`, and then root-writability/safe-import probe failures. They are preserved as infrastructure evidence: none emitted a qualification receipt or ran a model, scientific score, or H100 job. The sole falsifiable scientific gate remains unchanged but was never reached: unchanged must reach at least `387/1289` with every domain nonzero; revision must beat unchanged by at least 65 and self-refinement by at least 39 with no domain loss against either; commit must beat revision by at least 13, retain at least 95% of both the revision-correct and unchanged-correct sets, and lose no domain against revision; and custody must cover the exact `1289/1289` order with zero candidate-assessment truncation, zero malformed selections, complete hashes and accounting, and zero holdout/public/product access. No formal PASS or FAIL was produced; the recorded result is `null`. The frozen contract nevertheless makes this infrastructure failure terminal and authorizes no replay, retry, successor, or protected split. NDR1, KCR1, VTE1, the natural-language microcode bridge, the Q35 edit cascade, and small-OLMoE variants remain closed. Shohin is now a **transferable reasoning architecture for pretrained language models**, not primarily a plan to train another small decoder from scratch. Its strongest demonstrated mechanism is **model-owned temporal revision**: 1. one role state of a pretrained model writes a complete solution draft; 2. a separately trained role state of the same model reads the original problem and that exact draft; 3. it emits one coherent replacement trajectory; and 4. an optional learned commit policy chooses one complete trajectory without mixing answer fields. At inference there is no external proposal model, verifier, correctness bit, benchmark router, symbolic solver, retrieval system, or teacher. The draft is an internal computational artifact produced and consumed by the deployed model family. The architecture has produced large, source-disjoint gains on dense Qwen models from 0.8B through 9B and a strong aggregate gain on dense SmolLM3-3B. It has **not yet transferred strongly to a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) host**. Small-OLMoE experiments show that late shared-attention adaptation, static router-logit residuals, and shared post-MoE residuals weakly modulated by native expert codes all provide at most modest gains. Giving each native expert its own residual transform or routing among a new revision-only expert bank performs worse than shared correction. The best current OLMoE arm is an all-layer shared rank-18 post-MoE residual at `248/1,289`, versus unchanged `191`; a token-causal persistent-state router reaches only `249`, with expert top-1 routes changing on `0.0248%` of traced token/layer events. These are useful modest effects but remain below the frozen capability threshold. The small-OLMoE native-transfer lane is closed; larger-MoE scaling is not authorized from this evidence. A later Qwen3.6-35B-A3B program made draft editing explicitly causal with model-emitted KEEP/REPLACE transactions and deterministic execution. It qualified script mechanics but did not produce a reliable general semantic commit policy. The final frozen composition started from the strongest model-owned proposals (`1838/1908`), then the aligned trained editor reduced them to `1835`; swapped and draft-hidden controls preserved `1838`. This closes that explicit edit cascade without holdout or nearby retries. It does not displace the qualified dense draft/revision/whole-trajectory architecture described below. Shohin also now has a separate **learned-microcode architecture lane**. Its qualified development composition is: ```text raw source bytes -> learned 4.94M byte compiler -> width-64 grammar-constrained program search -> learned 108K-logit recurrent digit microcode -> exact terminal state ``` LAM1 executes learned local add/subtract/multiply digit transitions recurrently instead of asking a language model to regenerate complete arithmetic values. The frozen composition is exact on `3,917/3,917` source-disjoint development rows, with source shuffle `7/3,917`, source removal `14/3,917`, carry reset `367/3,917`, opcode permutation `5/3,917`, and zero normal invalid or exhausted executions. This is the strongest complete controlled source-to-terminal Shohin result. It remains a development result with explicit grammar, stack, and rational-state scaffolding; WGP1's confirmation source failed admission before model scoring, so no LAM1 holdout claim exists. The latest learned natural-language successor was **DTMC1**. A question-only typed compiler (TMC1) was causal but solved only `44/666 = 6.61%`, showing that one static source representation did not expose a sufficient semantic plan. DTMC1 therefore reads the frozen model's own autoregressive draft and emits a result-free typed computation graph whose numeric pointers remain restricted to the original problem. Its frozen corpus contains all `6,333` training identities, including `1,904` exhausted drafts; every source-plus-draft input passes the 1,024-token custody audit with zero truncation or pointer leakage. The 24.86M-parameter fit closed negative: aligned source-plus-draft reaches `45/666 = 6.76%`, versus draft shuffle `5/666`, source-plus-draft shuffle `4/666`, question-only TMC1 `44/666`, and direct generation `267/666`. Operation/operand accuracy is only `47.61% / 32.40%`. The draft is causally used, but this full-graph fixed-slot interface does not improve capability and is not part of the release architecture. Public test remained sealed. A final read-only bridge diagnostic, **DTC1**, then bypassed learned graph decoding entirely. It lowered explicit `<>` transactions from the same owner drafts into causal typed state references and let frozen LAM1 recompute every value. The mechanism is sharp when a trace exists: aligned scores `108/666`, draft shuffle and source-plus-draft shuffle each score `1/666`, state reset retains only `1/98` linked aligned solves, opcode permutation retains four, and normal execution has zero invalid rows. But only `257/666` owner drafts expose any accepted transaction. DTC1 repairs seven direct errors while breaking fourteen and remains far below the direct owner at `267/666`. This closes parser-level recovery: the current 0.8B owner often does not externalize a usable program at all. Canonical transaction post-training did not solve that planning boundary. CTE1 produced 598 executable ledgers but only `134/666` exact answers, versus the direct 0.8B owner at `267/666`; accuracy falls from `35.85%` at depth two to zero at depths six through eight. The ledger and executor are causal—state reset retains `1/131` linked solves and opcode permutation `1/666`—but they faithfully execute semantically wrong plans. A CPU-only locality audit then closed ledger editing before training: wrong ledgers have only 9.98% mean and 0% median gold-record copy, with just 26.88% within two record edits. The strongest capability-floor diagnostic uses untouched Qwen3.5-4B through the same canonical parser and learned LAM1 executor. It reaches `419/666`, with source shuffle `7`, state reset `0/419`, opcode permutation `3`, and zero normal execution invalidity. This shows that model scale restores substantial semantic program generation. It still fails the architecture gate: only `562/666` traces compile, and the capable 4B owner's direct answer claim is `487/666`. Exact ledger execution contributes 11 ledger-only solves but loses 79 direct-only solves. Therefore the current natural-language microcode bridge is closed: learned execution is causal, but it does not improve the capable owner. Executor-conditioned temporal revision does not rescue that bridge. With the qualified IDR4 4B reviser frozen, ECTR0 scores `476/666` when given the aligned canonical trace and learned-executor receipt, versus `479` with no receipt, `468` with a matched shuffled receipt, and the direct owner's `487`. Aligned repairs 15 direct errors but breaks 26. The receipt perturbs revision, but it does not add useful capability; exact ECTR0 is closed without training or public-test access. Paired read-only attribution sharpens that boundary. Direct and learned- executor answers differ on 137 rows; the aligned reviser follows direct on 109, follows the executor on only one, and emits a third answer on 27. The direct/executor oracle is only `498/666`. Better receipt phrasing or a hard selector therefore cannot provide a large bridge; the open capability path is broad model-owned temporal-revision training, not another microcode-interface retry. Broad natural-draft revision has now also received a clean negative test. NDR1 generated one Qwen3.5-9B+B1 draft for each of 11,220 fresh verified, evaluation-disjoint sources and trained matched aligned and same-domain nearest-length shuffled revision arms. On the frozen 1,289-row development board, aligned scored `306`, shuffled `343`, and unchanged `340`; aligned exhausted its 768-token budget on 879 rows versus 768 for shuffled. The exact model-owned draft therefore reduced capability and completion efficiency under ordinary full-trajectory CE. NDR1 closes without a nearby retry, and holdout remains sealed. This result reinforces the architectural requirement that a future reviser must make draft-dependent state or execution causally necessary rather than simply append a draft to source-to-solution training. The final bounded transaction family is closed. KCR1's unique canonical KEEP/CONTINUE/RESTART labels reached `1294/1566` semantic correctness despite only `1144/1566` canonical actions, exposing label nonidentifiability. VTE1 then trained over complete independently verified transaction-equivalence sets. It scored `1285/1566`, nine answers below KCR1, while emitting RESTART on every row, preserving zero KEEP drafts, and exhausting 197 generations. Set-valued supervision removed the arbitrary-label penalty but induced universal regeneration. KCR1 and VTE1 are closed without nearby retries; their controls, broad development, and holdout remain unopened. Historical ETTR graph-reactor and synthetic compiled-state experiments remain valuable research history, but they are not the current deployable Shohin architecture. The complete historical ledger is `SHOHIN_NATIVE_REASONING_MASTER.md`. ## Current architecture map Shohin currently contains two evidence-backed architectural paths and one open bridge between them: ```mermaid flowchart TB X["Natural-language problem"] X --> D["Shared backbone + draft role"] D --> R["Shared backbone + revision role"] R --> C["Whole-trajectory commit"] C --> B["Best practical broad-task system"] S["Controlled arithmetic source bytes"] --> BC["Learned byte compiler"] BC --> GP["Grammar-constrained complete program"] GP --> LM["Learned recurrent digit microcode"] LM --> T["Exact terminal state"] D -. "DTMC1/DTC1/CTE1/CTF1/ECTR0: closed bridges" .-> TG["Typed result-free graph"] X -.-> TG TG -.-> LM ``` The solid upper path is the qualified deployable temporal-revision system. The solid lower path is the qualified controlled LAM1 development system. The dotted bridge represents the closed DTMC1/DTC1/CTE1/CTF1/ECTR0 negatives: they demonstrate causal draft signal, causal transaction execution, and improved program quality with scale, but not a natural-language-to-microcode path that beats the capable direct owner. ## The architecture Let `G(theta, x, b)` denote bounded generation by a pretrained model with parameters `theta`, prompt `x`, and generation budget `b`. Shohin installs two small role states on a shared pretrained backbone: ```text draft d = G(theta + delta_draft, source, budget) revision y = G(theta + delta_revision, source || exact_draft(d), budget) final = whole_trajectory_commit(d, y) ``` `delta_draft` and `delta_revision` are role-specific low-rank states rather than independent full models. During revision training, the backbone and draft owner are frozen. The revision state is trained on complete verified target trajectories, not merely final answer labels. Deployment therefore contains one backbone, two small role states, and a deterministic two-phase controller. ```mermaid flowchart LR X["Problem x"] --> D["Shared backbone + draft state"] D --> T["Complete internal draft d"] X --> R["Shared backbone + revision state"] T --> R R --> Y["Complete revised trajectory y"] T --> C["Optional learned whole-trajectory commit"] Y --> C C --> O["One final trajectory"] ``` ### What is structurally different A normal decoder makes one left-to-right commitment. Ordinary self-refinement asks the unchanged model to try again. Best-of-two spends more inference compute but does not learn how to use its own earlier trajectory. Shohin instead trains a **role-specific later state** on the causal object created by the earlier state. The changed factor is not simply “more tokens” or “another LoRA”: - the first pass externalizes a full tentative computation; - the second role is trained specifically to diagnose and replace that computation; - source and exact draft are jointly visible to the reviser; - the revision is one coherent trajectory, never a fieldwise average; - matched controls use the same host, draft, prompt, target-token budget, and evaluator; and - source-disjoint identities and sealed holdouts separate training from evaluation. The working interpretation is that the draft becomes a temporary writable workspace. It exposes intermediate commitments that a later model state can condition on, revisit, and correct. Evidence supports this interpretation at the behavioral level: trained revision repeatedly beats an unchanged second pass, generic self-refinement, longer generation, and draft-masked training. It does not yet prove a unique internal algorithm or universal reliability. The revision operator is deliberately one-shot in the qualified release. A development-only test that applied the same 9B reviser twice fell from `589/1,289` to `539/1,289`: 15 errors were repaired, but 65 correct answers were broken. Recursive inference depth therefore requires a separately trained later owner plus an earned retention mechanism; blindly repeating the current reviser is closed. ### Whole-trajectory commitment At 9B, a learned model-owned commit stage compares two complete same-family trajectories and selects one. The useful result is the learned commit policy, not the specific antisymmetric scoring form: an antisymmetric relational head beat a matched independent scorer by only one answer, below the frozen causal margin. Shohin therefore claims coherent learned commitment, not a distinct antisymmetry discovery. ## Measured dense-model evidence All rows below compare trained revision against the matched unchanged second pass over source-disjoint identities unless noted otherwise. | Dense host | Development | Holdout | Qualified boundary | |---|---:|---:|---| | Qwen3.5-0.8B | `323/1289` vs `236/1289` (`+6.75 pp`) | `328/1279` vs `242/1279` (`+6.72 pp`) | aggregate gain; code `8` vs `9` fails strict retention | | Qwen3.5-4B | `529/1289` vs `371/1289` (`+12.26 pp`) | `554/1279` vs `380/1279` (`+13.61 pp`) | every attribution domain positive | | Qwen3.5-9B | `589/1289` vs `464/1289` (`+9.70 pp`) | `625/1279` vs `495/1279` (`+10.16 pp`) | every attribution domain positive; original MATH promotion floor missed | | SmolLM3-3B | `469/1289` vs `358/1289` (`+8.61 pp`) | sealed | cross-family aggregate gain; executable code `4` vs `9` fails retention | | OLMo2-7B | `259/1289` vs `231/1289` (`+2.17 pp`) | sealed | positive but too weak to promote | The 4B protected seven-task product board further tests whether a strong source-disjoint gain is uniformly reliable. The trained reviser scores `320/538` versus `272/538`, with macro accuracy `61.39%` versus `51.05%`. However, GSM8K, MATH-500, and logic regress by two, one, and two answers while science and code improve strongly. The aggregate result is substantial, but the predeclared all-domain-nonregression gate correctly fails. The strongest 9B product system adds a model-owned whole-trajectory commit: | 9B product system | Solved | Five-domain macro | |---|---:|---:| | unchanged second pass | `316/538` | `67.263%` | | trained revision | `374/538` | `75.005%` | | learned whole-trajectory commit | `383/538` | `75.815%` | | coherent oracle ceiling | `399/538` | `78.619%` | This is the strongest practical Shohin result. It establishes useful same-family draft/revision/commit computation on a dense 9B host. It is not a claim that the original 125M scratch checkpoint is a frontier reasoner. The complete system is now packaged as an immutable delta and has passed a five-prompt end-to-end H100 smoke test. The package verifies the pinned base, draft adapter, trained revision adapter, learned commit state, reports, and product qualification before inference, then records all candidates and the selected whole trajectory. See [`docs/research/SHOHIN_IDR_AQC_DEPLOYABLE_RELEASE.md`](docs/research/SHOHIN_IDR_AQC_DEPLOYABLE_RELEASE.md). ## What did not work on dense hosts Several negative results constrain the design: - A generated KEEP/REVISE selector on OLMo2-7B scored `229/1289`, below both unchanged (`231`) and always-revise (`259`). Read-only attribution showed that a perfect selector could add only one answer beyond always-revise. Selection was not the bottleneck. - An eight-step recurrent error-syndrome workspace scored `255/1289` versus `239` for its identical workspace control, demonstrating a small causal effect, but it remained below direct revision at `259` and regressed math and code. A latent correction-direction objective was not sufficient. These failures point toward revision capacity and capability preservation, not a larger output selector. ## The current MoE failure boundary The first MoE host is pinned `allenai/OLMoE-1B-7B-0125-Instruct`: 7B total parameters, approximately 1B active parameters, 64 experts, eight selected per token, 16 decoder layers. The exact same source-disjoint temporal-revision geometry was used. ### MTR1: shared-attention revision MTR1 trained rank-8 LoRA only in shared attention projections of the final four layers. Router and expert parameters remained frozen. It used 524,288 trainable parameters. | Arm | Correct / 1289 | Accuracy | |---|---:|---:| | shared-attention temporal revision | `204` | `15.8262%` | | unchanged second pass | `191` | `14.8177%` | | generic self-refinement | `169` | `13.111%` | | long single generation | `167` | `12.956%` | | best-of-two | `134` | `10.396%` | | draft-masked independent training | `189` | `14.6625%` | The treatment improves every broad domain nonnegatively (`+1` math, `+12` logic/science, `0` code), but gains only 13 answers / 1.01 points—far below the frozen `+5 pp` and strongest-control `+3 pp` gates. Router accounting is especially informative. Across 87 rows and 74,935 tokens, every expert is used and normalized route entropy remains about `0.932`, yet trained-versus-base route-count L1 drift is zero in layers 0–11 and only `0.00184`, `0.00381`, `0.00709`, and `0.01955` in layers 12–15. Mean all-layer drift is `0.002018`. The adapter changes some answers while leaving sparse computation almost unchanged. ### RCR1: direct router-logit residual RCR1 then trained a bounded rank-8 residual directly on the final four router logits while freezing every base router and expert. It used 67,584 trainable parameters and was compared with a 65,536-parameter rank-1 shared-attention control under the same data and 256-update budget. | Arm | Correct / 1289 | Accuracy | |---|---:|---:| | revision-conditioned router residual | `194` | `15.0504%` | | matched rank-1 attention | `191` | `14.8177%` | | unchanged second pass | `191` | `14.8177%` | | prior rank-8 shared-attention MTR1 | `204` | `15.8262%` | RCR1 adds only three answers and remains below MTR1. Exact RCR1 is closed. The larger Qwen3.6-35B-A3B MoE campaign is not authorized merely because its one-H100 NF4 mechanics fit; scaling a failed intervention would not identify the missing mechanism. ## What the MoE result means The evidence rules out two narrow hypotheses: 1. late shared-attention adaptation alone is enough to transfer dense temporal revision to this small MoE; and 2. a small, token-local, static residual on late router logits is enough. It does **not** show that temporal revision is incompatible with MoE. Several mechanisms remain unresolved: - **Routing may already be adequate while experts lack revision-specific computation.** Redirecting a token among frozen experts cannot create a correction operation that none of those experts learned. - **The controller may need memory across tokens.** Revision is a trajectory- level process, while RCR1 perturbs each router from the current hidden state independently. It has no persistent draft-diagnosis state. - **The intervention may occur too late.** Restricting adaptation to four late layers cannot change expert selection or representation formation in the first twelve layers. - **Top-k routing is discontinuous.** Small logit changes often leave the same eight experts selected; larger changes may destabilize load without producing useful specialization. - **The small host may be capacity-limited.** Approximately 1B active parameters may be too weak to exploit the draft reliably even though 7B parameters exist in total. - **Output loss weakly supervises routes.** A sequence-level correction target supplies a long credit-assignment path to thousands of discrete expert choices. The current task is to distinguish these causes from existing completed artifacts before training another mechanism. Outcomes are being partitioned into corrected, broken, persistent-wrong, and preserved-correct cases and correlated with per-layer route changes, expert overlap, entropy, and load. ## The leading MoE-native successor The strongest current direction is a **draft-conditioned multi-token revision controller**, contingent on the attribution above. It would summarize the source/draft discrepancy into a persistent recurrent state and use that state through multiple layers and output tokens to control both: 1. bounded router-logit deltas; and 2. small revision-specific expert-side low-rank adapters or a shared adapter basis whose coefficients are selected by the controller. Conceptually: ```text s_t = recurrent_controller(s_(t-1), source_state, draft_state, h_t) router_logits' = router_logits + bounded_route_delta(s_t, h_t, layer) expert_output' = expert_output + selected_low_rank_delta(s_t, h_t, expert, layer) ``` This is not yet a result or a frozen final design. Its purpose is to test the missing interaction that MTR1 and RCR1 exclude: persistent trajectory-level diagnosis plus revision-specific computation inside the sparse path. A valid experiment must include matched controls: - equal-budget dense shared-attention adaptation; - router-only recurrent control; - expert-adapter-only control; - shuffled-draft or draft-masked controller; - identical update/data/decoding budgets; and - router utilization, entropy, expert overlap, active parameters, FLOPs, memory, latency, and accuracy-per-compute reporting. The initial gate remains OLMoE development. Only a preregistered pass on both overall margins and all-domain retention may open its sealed holdout and then authorize a larger MoE host. ## Honest claim boundary Shohin currently supports these claims: - trained same-family draft-conditioned revision produces large aggregate gains on several dense pretrained models; - the effect survives a 0.8B-to-9B Qwen scale intervention and transfers in aggregate to SmolLM3; - a learned whole-trajectory commit improves the strongest 9B product system; - capability preservation is not universal; and - two plausible small-MoE interventions have failed under matched controls. Shohin does not yet support these claims: - reliable improvement in every domain or model family; - successful temporal revision on MoE; - open-domain frontier reasoning; - a novel antisymmetric selector mechanism; - a reasoning result from the old 125M Shohin checkpoint; or - authorization for large-scale MoE training before the mechanism passes on the small host. ## Where to read next PCF8 is closed as a null infrastructure run. Its prepare, no-score mechanics, and B1 jobs completed, but draft task `751823_3` received an H100 allocation on `evc33` while `nvidia-smi` reported no devices; it failed before generation and zero draft files were published. PCF9 is prospectively frozen with the sole infrastructure change of excluding `evc33`; all scientific settings and the single publication gate remain unchanged. - `docs/research/SHOHIN_MOE_FRONTIER_CONSULTATION_BRIEF_20260809.md` — self-contained MoE problem statement and design request. - `docs/research/SHOHIN_TRANSFERABLE_TEMPORAL_REVISION_CONTRACT.md` — exact architecture and matched-control contract. - `docs/research/SHOHIN_MTR1_SMALL_MOE_TRANSFER.md` — shared-attention MoE experiment. - `docs/research/SHOHIN_RCR1_REVISION_CONDITIONED_ROUTING.md` — direct router experiment. - `docs/research/DIVERGE_IDR1_INTERNAL_DRAFT_REVISION.md` and `docs/research/DIVERGE_AQC1_ANTISYMMETRIC_QUOTIENT_COMMIT.md` — strongest 9B revision and commitment evidence. - `SHOHIN_NATIVE_REASONING_MASTER.md` — complete chronological ledger, including negative and historical work.