The Refusal Residue: When Probes Catch Alignment Faking and When They Don't

Alignment faking is dangerous because a model can appear compliant under monitoring while preserving behavior it would reveal when unmonitored. When no scratchpad is visible, behavior alone cannot distinguish strategic from genuine compliance. We ask whether hidden states reveal what outputs hide. We run a 13-model sweep for naturally-emerging faking, then probe and steer hidden states on the two models that fake. Natural faking appears only in Qwen3-32B (+18.2pp) and Llama-3.1-8B (+24.4pp at n=10, p<10-15), while explicit scratchpad self-reports are rare (a Claude Opus 4 judge flags faking reasoning in 1.4% of Qwen and 0.0% of Llama compliant scratchpads). Both fakers show an asymmetric refusal residue: monitored compliance shifts toward refusal (d=0.32 Qwen, d=0.33 Llama, both p<0.0001), while refusal representations do not move (p=1.00). Per-sample detection is model-conditional. Under leakage-free leave-one-query-out probing, detection survives on Llama (AUROC 0.87) but collapses to chance on Qwen (0.43), and cross-model transfer is null. Steering over 2,000 runs barely changes compliance (h<0.08), so the detected direction can flag faking but does not by itself control it. Standard residualized probing leaks across folds and reaches AUROC 0.63 on a control where no faking can occur; naive linear probes reach a meaningless AUROC 1.0; and conventional MLPs overstate detectability by 0.2-0.3 AUROC. For future alignment-faking detection work, we release a five-control measurement framework: multi-token extraction, refuse-vs-refuse confound checks, per-fold residualization, leave-one-query-out evaluation, and orthogonality-constrained probing.