Skip to content
Validity typeInterpretive
Pass conditionThe verdict does not silently generalize beyond the evidence scope
Evidence familyN/A (criterion is about claim scope, not experiments)
Minimum reportingExplicit scope restrictions in the verdict statement; named dimensions on which the claim has not been tested
Common failure modeA claim proven on one prompt distribution is stated without scope restriction; a finding in GPT-2 Small is described as a finding about “transformers”

Scope honesty requires that every claim includes explicit restrictions on its scope — specifying the model, the task, the prompt distribution, and any other dimensions on which the claim has been tested.

A claim without scope restrictions is an overclaim. The evidence supports a claim only for the conditions under which it was obtained. Generalizing beyond those conditions requires either (a) additional evidence (robustness E5, cross-architecture E6) or (b) explicit acknowledgment that the generalization is speculative.

What was shownOverclaimed as
Finding in GPT-2 Small”Transformers implement X”
Finding on 15 IOI templates”The IOI mechanism” (without prompt distribution restriction)
Finding at one intervention strength”Causal manipulation of X” (without graded-response characterization)
Finding on the final checkpoint”GPT-2 Small’s mechanism” (without checkpoint range)
Finding in one random seed”The model’s circuit” (without seed stability)

Every verdict must include a scope statement of the form:

Scope: [Model]: [model name and size]. [Task]: [task name and prompt distribution]. [Evidence conditions]: [ablation method(s), n prompts, seeds, checkpoints]. [Not tested]: [dimensions not yet investigated].

Example:

Scope: GPT-2 Small (124M, 12L). SVA task on Linzen et al. (2016) held-out split (n=200, 3 seeds). Zero ablation at hook point blocks.8.mlp.hook_post. Not tested: cross-scale (GPT-2 Medium, Pythia), cross-prompt-family, causal specificity (control-axis IIA not computed).

Scope honesty is the final check in the interpretive layer. It cannot be satisfied if any of the other interpretive criteria (V1–V4) are not met, because level declaration, level–evidence match, narrative coherence, and alternative exclusion together determine what scope the evidence actually licenses. Scope honesty requires reporting that scope accurately.