published-canonicalmethodmaha-epistemic/1.0

Causal scrubbing

The cited source supports treating causal scrubbing as a distinct method within the stated mechanistic interpretability scope. Within this page, that proposition is limited to Limited to Method definition, correspondence, resampling interventions, examples, and limitations. in “Causal Scrubbing: a method for rigorously testing interpretability hypotheses”; this candidate records the concept boundary and does not pool results from uncited systems or studies.

Substantial reference · 9 evidence dimensions · maha-substantial-publication/1.1

Bounded definition

The cited source supports treating causal scrubbing as a distinct method within the stated mechanistic interpretability scope. Within this page, that proposition is limited to Limited to Method definition, correspondence, resampling interventions, examples, and limitations. in “Causal Scrubbing: a method for rigorously testing interpretability hypotheses”; this candidate records the concept boundary and does not pool results from uncited systems or studies.

Definition and evidence boundary

A source-bounded method record for causal scrubbing within mechanistic interpretability. The bounded proposition retained by the canonical record is: The cited source supports treating causal scrubbing as a distinct method within the stated mechanistic interpretability scope.

The applicable scope is Limited to Method definition, correspondence, resampling interventions, examples, and limitations. in “Causal Scrubbing: a method for rigorously testing interpretability hypotheses”; this candidate records the concept boundary and does not pool results from uncited systems or studies. This definition must not be generalized beyond the cited source and exact record boundary.

Claims: urn:maha:claim:mechanistic-interpretability-causal-scrubbing

Mechanism and technical context

The work proposes resampling-based tests for whether a hypothesized computational graph preserves behavior under declared interventions. This is the source-bound technical context for the record; no uncited mechanism is added by the compiler.

Causal scrubbing does not by itself establish system-level performance, safety, manufacturability, scalability, economic advantage, clinical benefit, or deployment readiness. The mechanism or method is therefore presented as one component of a larger system, not as evidence for every downstream outcome.

Claims: urn:maha:claim:mechanistic-interpretability-causal-scrubbing

How to interpret the evidence

No cross-source quantitative interval is asserted. Definitions, operating conditions, samples, instruments, and outcome measures must be checked against the exact cited locator during review. The evidence maturity recorded here is single study, and the claim kind is theoretical model.

Independent replication and cross-platform transfer have not been compiled for this candidate; the evidence maturity refers only to the bounded source contract. Passing a declared test does not prove the hypothesis is unique, complete, or semantically correct. These qualifications travel with the claim whenever it is reused.

Claims: urn:maha:claim:mechanistic-interpretability-causal-scrubbing

What the source supports and what remains unknown

The inspected source supports exactly this: The work proposes resampling-based tests for whether a hypothesized computational graph preserves behavior under declared interventions. It was read at Method definition, correspondence, resampling interventions, examples, and limitations.

What remains unknown is everything outside that locator. Causal scrubbing does not by itself establish system-level performance, safety, manufacturability, scalability, economic advantage, clinical benefit, or deployment readiness. No quantity, comparison, or downstream outcome is established here unless a separately scoped record measures it.

Claims: urn:maha:claim:mechanistic-interpretability-causal-scrubbing

Comparison and calculation boundary

Applicability is decided explicitly, not filled with generic material.

Comparison · not-applicable

This record carries 1 source-bound proposition and therefore has no second supported side. A comparison would have to be manufactured from an adjacent title rather than from a second inspected claim, which the gate forbids.

Calculation · not-applicable

The canonical claim declares no reproducible numerical inputs, equation, units, or uncertainty propagation; recorded uncertainty kind is qualitative. Supplying sample values would invent an unsupported quantitative result.

Limitations and prohibited inference

The claim stops where its evidence stops.

  • record boundary

    Causal scrubbing does not by itself establish system-level performance, safety, manufacturability, scalability, economic advantage, clinical benefit, or deployment readiness.

  • record boundary

    A source-bounded mechanism, method, or measurement record does not establish manufacturing yield, economic advantage, safety, clinical benefit, or commercial readiness unless those outcomes are measured in a separately scoped record.

  • prohibited inference

    Do not use this causal scrubbing record to claim that the surrounding technology is proven, safe, scalable, commercially available, or strategically superior.

  • prohibited inference

    Do not transfer a reported result across hardware, organisms, protocols, datasets, operating conditions, or outcome definitions without a declared comparison contract.

  • editorial

    This compilation reorganizes an existing inspected claim and its declared source; it does not add a new experiment, measurement, or independent replication.

  • editorial

    Internal editorial inspection is not external peer review, and no result on this page has been independently reproduced.

Related records and mathematical bridges

When no declared bridge edge is present, related records are linked by shared evidence or canonical domain adjacency. Those links are navigational and do not claim mathematical or physical equivalence.

Claim ledger

Every proposition keeps its own evidence state.

theoretical-modelsingle-study

The cited source supports treating causal scrubbing as a distinct method within the stated mechanistic interpretability scope.

Scope
Limited to Method definition, correspondence, resampling interventions, examples, and limitations. in “Causal Scrubbing: a method for rigorously testing interpretability hypotheses”; this candidate records the concept boundary and does not pool results from uncited systems or studies.
Boundary
Causal scrubbing does not by itself establish system-level performance, safety, manufacturability, scalability, economic advantage, clinical benefit, or deployment readiness.
Uncertainty
No cross-source quantitative interval is asserted. Definitions, operating conditions, samples, instruments, and outcome measures must be checked against the exact cited locator during review.
Replication
Independent replication and cross-platform transfer have not been compiled for this candidate; the evidence maturity refers only to the bounded source contract.

Primary sources

Citation, locator, rights, and boundary travel together.

  1. Source 1 · Alignment Research Center

    Causal Scrubbing: a method for rigorously testing interpretability hypotheses

    Lawrence Chan, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, Nicholas Goldowsky-Dill, et al.

    Exact locator
    Method definition, correspondence, resampling interventions, examples, and limitations.
    Establishes
    The work proposes resampling-based tests for whether a hypothesized computational graph preserves behavior under declared interventions.
    Boundary
    Passing a declared test does not prove the hypothesis is unique, complete, or semantically correct.
    Rights basis
    citation with paraphrase · The candidate uses original boundary language and a short paraphrase linked to the cited source. No source passage, figure, or table is reproduced.