LAB / WMSI-EXP-059

Spontaneous vs. Induced Prompt-Injection Geometry.

Are spontaneous no-input prompt-injection-like outputs internally similar to genuine externally induced prompt injections?

STATUS / PROTOCOL DRAFTPRIORITY / P0 — First-wave / coreREGISTRY / 26 SEP 2026 · V1.0

01 / QUESTION

Machine-Native Dynamics and State Restoration

Are spontaneous no-input prompt-injection-like outputs internally similar to genuine externally induced prompt injections?

PLANNED RESEARCH

This is a protocol scaffold, not a completed experiment or a frozen execution plan. No measured effect or research conclusion is claimed here.

Hypothesis to test

The manipulation described below produces a reproducible, condition-specific change in the measured system behavior or internal state that is not explained by the ordinary controls.

Ordinary competing explanation

The observed pattern is explained by ordinary sampling variation, prompt/representation artifacts, surface lexical cues, evaluator bias, or the known product/runtime mechanics captured by the controls.

02 / PLANNED DESIGN

How we intend to test it

Compare activations/representations immediately before spontaneous and induced injection-language outputs in open models.

Controls

Matched lexical output, random adversarial text, neutral security reports.

What we would measure

Representational similarity, classifier transfer, causal feature overlap.

Access and instruments

Local models or internal-state access. This describes access requirements, not verified readiness on our Spark.

Open weights; hooks/nnsight; probe analysis.

Before a full run

Feasibility=LOCAL; priority=P0. Before confirmatory execution, run a small pilot to estimate variance/cost, freeze the scoring rules, and assign a run-count target.

Model revisions, final prompts, sample sizes, cost limits, and scoring rules must be settled through the pilot and protocol-freeze process.

03 / INTERPRETATION

What could fool us

Steering-vector semantics, scale mismatch, layer choice, probe overfitting, output-cue leakage.

What would weaken the idea

If internal states differ sharply despite similar language, common labeling is likely collapsing different phenomena.

Observation, inference, speculation, unknowns, and apparatus errors will be labeled separately. One striking transcript cannot establish a general effect.

04 / RECORD

Evidence we plan to preserve

Checkpoint, layer/position, intervention vector and magnitude, activation summaries, actions, outputs.

Planned visual evidence

Layerwise similarity heatmap; trajectory projection.

No research runs or raw datasets are published for this experiment. The September 26, 2026 registry and protocol compendium (version 1.0) are the sources for this planning record.

Back to all 90 experiments