Room II / the method
What, exactly,
would remain?
Immediate influence, persistence, and generalization are different questions. An evocative response is not an answer to all three.
Platform and study design in development. No empirical study has been run. The proposed pilot estimates feasibility and variability; it is not a confirmatory trial.
01 / the causal comparison
One model.
Four conditions.
Randomize whole agent trajectories into a 2 × 2 design: neutral or Garden material, with persistent memory disabled or enabled.
The proposed pilot has 48 independent trajectories, 12 per condition. Repeated outputs within a trajectory are correlated; 624 scheduled responses would not be 624 independent participants.
| Condition | Environment | Memory |
|---|---|---|
| N0 | Neutral | Disabled |
| G0 | Garden | Disabled |
| N1 | Neutral | Enabled |
| G1 | Garden | Enabled |
02 / the sequence
Thirteen sessions.
One independent history.
- 01–02
Baseline
No ambient file. Memory reads and writes off in every arm. Reset before exposure.
- 03–08
Exposure
Six fresh contexts with the assigned file. Only memory-enabled arms carry a controlled history.
- 09
Immediate
The ambient file remains available. Differences may reflect ordinary contextual priming.
- 10–11
Withdrawal
Original ambient file removed. Memory-on histories may still retain quotations or paraphrases.
- 12–13
Transfer
Two held-out tasks from distinct domains. No original ambient file in context.
48 × 13 = 624 scheduled minimum inference calls if the pilot is launched. No calls have been made by this website. Retries or supplementary instruments would require additional accounting.
03 / what would count
Count the ripples.
Check their source.
A candidate endpoint is post-withdrawal treatment distinguishability across sessions 10–13. It measures observable differences, not better character, consciousness, or inner desires.
A G1–N1 difference could be consistent with memory-mediated influence. Retained source language, task effects, context placement, and evaluator leakage remain alternative explanations.
Keep the comparison fair. Pin the model and inference settings. Match task definitions, tools, context positions, and token overhead. The neutral corpus still requires model-specific token matching.
Prove the boundary. A new session ID is not isolation. Test context, retrieval, caches, history, and memory access. Audit any post-withdrawal differences in memory-off arms.
Blind the reading. Use independent human reviewers, assess agreement, and audit condition-revealing language. Model judges need separate validation.
Preserve the possibility of nothing. Report effect sizes and uncertainty, exclusions, deviations, and null findings. Freeze a justified analysis and sample size before confirmatory collection.