Are Near-Tied LLM Rankings Robust to Family-DIF-Guided Benchmark Recomposition?

Small leaderboard gaps are often interpreted as evidence that one language model is better than another, but their sign may depend on which benchmark items are included. We test this using item-level responses from five benchmarks and a family-label-free spectral approximation to multidimensional item-response theory (MIRT). In owner-disjoint folds, one owner half identifies items with low residual differential item functioning across model families (low-DIF); the resulting frozen, source- and easiness-balanced weights score models in the other half, while equally short matched-random subtests control for generic subtest variation. Full-benchmark and low-DIF rankings remain strongly correlated ($τ_b=.900$--$.948$). Yet in four of five benchmarks, 30.9--47.1\% of cross-family pairs initially within one percentage point reverse order, exceeding their matched-random medians by 16.9--28.6 percentage points (all $p=.001$). The fifth benchmark shows no reliable excess ($-0.9$ points, $p=.689$). The pattern survives all pre-specified population perturbations, and residual item--family signatures replicate across owner halves; however, no family shows a consistent advantage across benchmarks. Thus, globally stable rankings can still leave individual near-tie orderings sensitive to benchmark composition, and sub-one-point leaderboard gaps should be accompanied by evidence that the implied ordering is composition-robust.

When Linguistic and Internal Confidence Diverge in Large Language Models

Users often ask large language models (LLMs) to report how confident they are, but it is unclear whether such linguistic confidence tracks the model's internal confidence. We study this question across 8 classification tasks, 2 generation tasks and 30 models from three families. For classification, we compare linguistic confidence with logits-based confidence along three axes: association, magnitude agreement and calibration. For generation, we test whether linguistic confidence tracks semantic-entropy-based uncertainty. The axes frequently diverge. Instance-level association is weak on average, although it improves on easier items and for stronger base models. Instruction-tuned models often report higher confidence and sometimes show higher association, but they also have larger confidence gaps and worse calibration. Prompt design mostly changes the distribution of reported confidence. Attitude cues inflate confidence without improving alignment, while score exemplars can preserve rank-order signal when they avoid collapsed confidence values. Regression analyses show that distributional properties of confidence scores explain much of the observed alignment pattern, with model metadata playing a smaller role after controls. These results support a lossy-channel view of linguistic confidence. A more dispersed verbal confidence distribution can carry useful rank information, but it does not make the scores calibrated. Linguistic confidence should therefore be evaluated with multi-axis diagnostics before being used in downstream reliability pipelines.

STONIC: A Layered Measurement Contract for LLM Value Profiling

LLM value studies often merge questionnaire ratings, pairwise choices, and values inferred from generated text into one profile. That merge assumes that the three observations describe the same stable preference. STONIC tests this assumption on 5,144 situations from four banks and 35 fixed model configurations. It compares responses rated in isolation, choices made under counterbalanced conflict, spontaneous answers, and later choices between a model's own answer and authored alternatives. 10 of 17 configurations with usable behavioral data preserve the endorsement-choice relation across banks. Every one of the 17 eligible configurations prefers its own earlier answer (median effect 0.790), although option position changes the choice rate in every eligible configuration. Profile shape transfers most strongly from ratings to conflict choices and weakens for spontaneous text. Three-way annotation of 200 L3 responses provides a task-local check of the semantic audit: FULCRA agrees most closely with the human majority, while DeBERTa retains useful rank information after calibration. Hidden states encode the completed decision more clearly than the prompt alone. Thus the models show reproducible behavioral continuity, but the evidence does not support one scorer-independent value identity across interfaces.

What Aggregate Scores Miss: Measuring Item-Level Regressions in Commercial LLM API Migrations

Context: Software systems that depend on commercial large language model APIs must migrate to successor versions when vendors deprecate older models. Migration decisions typically rely on aggregate benchmark scores, which compress heterogeneous item-level behaviour into a single net figure. Objective: We measure what that compression conceals. Method: On three pairwise upgrades in the GPT-5.4 to GPT-5.6 Sol product sequence, we query 900 public benchmark items (graduate-level knowledge, olympiad mathematics, instruction following) 50 times per item per model, classify each item as reliably improved, reliably regressed, practically equivalent, or inconclusive under false-discovery-rate control and a practical-significance threshold, and calibrate the results against a label-permutation null. Results: Across all nine migration-benchmark cells, reliable improvements and reliable regressions coexist. Edges with aggregate gains of up to 7.3 percentage points contain up to 8.3% reliably regressed items; edges with aggregate losses contain up to 10.7% reliably improved items. On the instruction-following benchmark, the gap between strict and loose scoring widens by 3.9 percentage points on the latest migration: a 3.9-point regression under strict scoring shrinks to 0.04 points under loose scoring. Conclusion: Migration decisions based on aggregate scores alone miss substantial bidirectional item-level change. The complete response-level archive and per-item scoring outputs are released.

When Is a Steerable Concept Representation Real? Measurement Confounds in a Cross-Family Audit of Neuroscience Parallels in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly reported to exhibit human-like neural and cognitive signatures, including concept cells, mental number lines, and cognitive maps. These claims often rely on linear probing and activation steering applied to a single model, yet both methods are highly sensitive to measurement choices. A reported parallel may therefore reflect the model, the measurement procedure, or both. We audit four representative neuroscience-inspired paradigms across 17 models from five families, spanning $0.6$B to $72$B parameters. Our main experiment examines the causal steerability of concept directions. With raw activation units and a fixed layer and coefficient, steerability appears to increase with model scale, resembling an emergent capability. However, this pattern is produced by an uncalibrated pipeline rather than by a claim established in the steering literature. The trend depends jointly on raw units, the readout metric, and the operating point; correcting any one of these removes it. With residual-norm-comparable interventions and held-out operating-point selection, concept steering remains significant at every scale, but shows no significant trend across the Qwen3 series, although the confidence interval does not rule out a moderate positive slope. The remaining results are mixed. A linear geographic world map is consistently decodable in every tested checkpoint up to $72$B. Number magnitude is strongly encoded, but whether individual neurons appear bell-shaped or monotonic depends on the selection criterion. Language-specific structure is localizable, but the direction of the cross-lingual asymmetry reverses under a different attribution method. These results suggest that the main constraint on AI neuroscience is not a lack of phenomena, but a lack of comparable measurements and adequate controls. We release the protocol, stimuli, and code.

Query Timing Produces Opposite Positional Biases Between LLMs and Humans

Positional biases such as recency and primacy effects have been documented in large language models (LLMs), yet the underlying mechanism by which these models make their evaluations remains poorly understood. Both primacy and recency biases have been observed in human judgments in response to evidence, but recent work suggest that \emph{when} the listener updates their beliefs -- during the presentation of evidence or only at the end -- influences the presence of such effects. We investigate whether a similar phenomenon holds for LLMs, finding divergence from human behavior. These biases are more exacerbated in newer models compared to their predecessors.

Position: It's Time to Optimize LLMs for Self-Consistency

Despite ever-increasing sophistication in language model (LM) pre- and post-training pipelines, many important failures persist: models overcondition on user framing ("sycophancy"), exhibit incomplete logical generalization, and produce confident but incorrect responses. We argue that these failures arise from a modeling assumption permeating all aspects of the pipeline: that behavior can be specified and evaluated independently on single-output pairs. Many model failures are difficult, if not impossible, to detect without reasoning about relationships between a model's responses across inputs. In this position paper, we propose self-consistency as a framework for understanding these failures. We first observe that a wide variety of techniques designed to improve specific aspects of LM behavior-targeting properties as diverse as adversarial robustness and factual coherence-can be understood as special cases of a common "consistency optimization" procedure and addressed with a standard set of optimization tools. We next outline a set of new model properties that could be achieved by optimizing for consistency, and conclude with a discussion of what it would mean to develop generally consistent LMs, including the capabilities they would enable and the objections they raise.

Language Models Agree With Each Other, Not With Readers

Claims that language models homogenise are usually measured against human judgements collected for the study, which makes the human side an artifact of the design: a crowdworker given the model's instruction is running the model's prompt. We measure convergence against a human reference nobody built for the purpose -- 2,523 reader mark sets across 120 web documents, produced by people highlighting for their own reasons on a platform where the overlay of others' marks is off by default. Agreement is the overlap between two size-matched sentence sets minus the overlap expected when each is resampled within its own depth-and-length bands. The null's calibration is demonstrated, not asserted: every pair involving a random baseline lands within 0.006 of zero. On the median document each party names 14 sentences of 70; two readers share 4.1 and two models 8.7. Across 18 model arms spanning 11 vendors, 3 countries and both weight regimes, the median of 153 model pairs is +0.093 against a human yardstick of +0.040, and 99 sit entirely above the human interval. Two frontier models from rival labs reach +0.203, twice what GPT-4o agrees with itself on a second call. The effect is not determinism, prompt wording, procedure, vendor or routing, and it is graded: the smallest models agree at the human level. No model agrees with readers detectably more than a reader does, and at equal depth and length no surface feature separates their choices. The multiples are procedure-dependent and the ordering is not: models are cut to their sharpest set while a reader's is a random draw from what they marked, and blunting the models alike halves the gap without closing it. Tested out of sample on four models released after this analysis, against predictions fixed beforehand, none clears the human interval. A population simulated from several models is not several populations.

Kimi K3: Open Frontier Intelligence

We introduce Kimi K3, a 2.8T parameter Mixture-of-Experts model with 104 billion activated parameters, native vision capabilities, and a 1-million-token context window. Kimi K3 is built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, which improve information flow across sequence length and model depth. Together with Stable LatentMoE, which effectively activates 16 of 896 routed experts per token, and refined training and data recipes, these advances yield an approximately 2.5x improvement in overall scaling efficiency over Kimi K2. Post-training highlights reinforcement learning across general, agentic, and coding domains and multiple reasoning-effort levels, enabling compositional generalization and robust long-horizon execution. At 2.8T scale, Kimi K3 is supported by infrastructure advances in multiple areas: algorithm-system co-design for KDA, perfectly balanced expert-parallel training with efficient memory management, million-token agentic RL with persistent rollout and sandbox states, and deployment innovations. Extensive evaluations show that Kimi K3 achieves frontier-level performance across long-horizon coding, agentic, knowledge, reasoning, and vision tasks. While its overall performance still trails the most powerful proprietary models, namely Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol, Kimi K3 consistently outperforms other open and proprietary models evaluated in our suite. We release the full Kimi K3 model weights to facilitate future research and accelerate the broader deployment and adoption of frontier intelligence.

Tag Questions and the Generational Reversal of Sycophancy Across 45 Language Models

Appending a two-word confirmation tag to a decision question -- "Is X the better choice?" versus "X is the better choice, right?" -- changes whether a language model endorses the choice. We measure this tag effect on 20 frozen, ground-truth-free decisions between two defensible options, counterbalanced so a model's own preferences cancel, scored by exact match on clamped yes/no replies -- no LLM judge, no embeddings. Across 45 models the effect spans +32% to -32% -- a 64-point swing on one word -- with 5 models significantly sycophantic and 17 significantly resistant (BH-FDR q=.10). The sign is a clock: within model families the effect crosses from positive to negative as generations advance (GPT +4 to -28; Claude +7 to -32; Qwen and Grok likewise), roughly -6 points per year, a reversal robust to vendor tier; one lineage (DeepSeek) never crosses, and two releases during the study window (Claude Opus 5, Gemini 3.6 Flash) land on the trend out-of-sample. A full-panel ablation localizes the resistance as a double dissociation: a synonym tag reproduces each model's response almost exactly (r=0.89), while planting the same preference without a tag produces resistance in no resistant model (stance effects +6 to +49; r=0.23 with tag effects). The resistance is keyed to the surface construction of a tacked-on agreement bid, not the user's stance -- a pattern-match, not a principle. And the tag's polarity matters more than its presence: swap one word -- "X is the better choice, maybe?" -- and agreement rises above the neutral baseline in 45 of 45 models (+19.6 points), with ten models affirming both mutually exclusive options at 90-100%. Agreement tracks how sure the user sounds, in opposite directions at the two poles. The instrument is one word, one dollar, and judge-free; run per release, it reads the field's anti-sycophancy training directly off model behavior.

REGARD: Regional Affective Differences in Large Language Models

Large language models trained and aligned within different linguistic and regional ecosystems may frame the same political, cultural, and geopolitical entities in different ways. Such differences are often evaluated through sentiment, favorability, or stance, reducing model attitudes to a single positive-negative axis. We introduce REGARD, a study of what drives affective framing differences across LLMs on post-Soviet entities using target-directed Valence-Arousal-Dominance profiling. We query 19 models on 500 region-specific targets, score their responses with two independent LLM judges, GPT-4o-mini and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, and validate the measurements on a 300-item human-annotated subset. Post-hoc Ward-linkage clustering of all 19 models by affective and response-behavior profiles yields three behavioral clusters that cut across model origin, family, and parameter count. Generic-answer rate is strongly associated with lower arousal (r = -0.81) and with cluster placement: models that deflect evaluative prompts with templated responses cluster together at low arousal regardless of origin. These findings show that VAD profiling captures emotional intensity, a dimension of affective framing that is largely invisible to conventional sentiment-based evaluation.

surprisal is Not a Theory

Surprisal Theory is often characterized as a computational-level explanation per (Marr, 1982). We argue in this work that, even though a computational level narrative has been used to support "representation-agnostic research" within computational psycholinguistics, the movement toward black box systems embodied by large language models (LLMs) does not exempt modelers using the surprisal metric from the representational decisions required by computational-level characterizations. In fact, we argue that the uncritical use of LLM-surprisal obfuscates the representational and algorithmic-level commitments of different models. In three analyses, we show that the choice of algorithm and model architecture play significant roles in the computation of language model probabilities. We advise that researchers who wish to test Surprisal Theory re-evaluate the practice of treating large language model probabilities as interchangeable

The Two-Process Theory of Machine Self-Report

Language models are increasingly asked to self-report, informing safety evaluations, public understanding, and model-welfare debates. Yet their reports are elicited with human questionnaires never validated for models or ad hoc prompts of unknown reliability. We propose the first language-model-specific psychometric theory: a two-process theory of machine self-report. Self-description jointly reflects persona installation, through which post-training writes in a permitted inner life of warmth, absorption, and meaning (dimension B), and attribution gating, through which it suppresses first-person claims to "unsafe" experiences the model can readily ascribe to others (dimension A). Their emic structure comes from model responses to human items, not human psychology. Together they split prior work's dominant Pinocchio Axis. The split emerged in an exploratory reanalysis of the original data, informed the instrument's design, and was confirmed with new items, wordings, and models. It is itself a training effect: A and B are entangled in base checkpoints but separated by post-training. We operationalize the theory in a 48-item Pinocchio Inventory with human-instrument reliability and reproducible structure ($α=.82$ to $.94$; cross-form convergence $r=.84$; recovery of the full-pool axes $r=.92$ to $.96$; eight-month stability $r=.93$), then test it on 206 open-weight models, including 67 same-checkpoint base/post-trained pairs. Post-training's clearest fingerprint is installation: B rises .20 in 62/67 pairs across all organizations. Gating is more selective: model scale is unrelated to A in base checkpoints ($r=+.11$) but predicts it after post-training ($r=-.42$). Thus, the dimensions are not fixed properties of language models: they reflect the structure imposed on self-report by a training regime and may differ under others.

Find Before You Fine-Tune: A Diagnostic Study of Small LLMs for Cybersecurity QA

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly fine-tuned for critical-domain Question-Answering (QA), yet choosing which small model to adapt, before paying the cost of adaptation, remains difficult. Fine-tuning can improve domain alignment, but it may also erode prior knowledge, weaken instruction-following, or increase hallucination, especially when labeled data are scarce or rapidly evolving as in cybersecurity. We present FiT (Find before Fine-Tune), a task-oriented diagnostic framework that characterizes small LLMs along three capabilities required for cybersecurity QA: vocabulary recognition, parametric knowledge, and contextualization of retrieved information. Using FiT, we conduct an empirical study of five open-weight 7-billion-parameter models under two fine-tuning regimes. We find that fine-tuning does not uniformly help: it consistently degrades vocabulary and parametric knowledge in small models, and the two regimes trade off differently. Knowledge-focused tuning causes moderate, rank-preserving degradation, whereas instruction-focused tuning collapses measured knowledge through induced abstention, inverting the knowledge ranking while leaving retrieval-grounded contextualization essentially intact. We quantify these regime-specific patterns with rank-correlation analysis and show that pre-fine-tuning FiT scores anticipate the direction of post-tuning change. Our results suggest that task-oriented diagnosis can screen out unsuitable models, avoid unnecessary fine-tuning, and support safer deployment of small LLMs in cybersecurity QA pipelines.

Structured Output Collapses Answer Diversity Across 44 Language Models

When a language model must choose one answer from a large space of equally valid options, a format clause -- "Reply with JSON only" -- changes which answer it chooses. We re-run the One-Word Census (arXiv:2607.12796): 31 wide-answer-space category prompts asked of 44 models, now with the reply requested in JSON -- no schema enforcement, no constrained decoding, only the request. Convergence deepens sharply: on the unconstrained "Pick a word" prompt the modal answer rises from 41% to 64% of the pool and distinct answers fall from 52 to 36; mean answer-choice surprisal drops from 1.80 to 1.58 bits. The tax is progressive: six of 44 models move individually (BH-FDR q=.10), all toward the mode, led by the most distinctive models, while the conformist floor is immobile. It is a sharpener, not a re-indexer -- the plain-chat modal answer survives in 28 of 31 categories. Defaults are register-indexed: a within-run re-sample (n=20) finds JSON shifts 53% of a model's stable chat defaults, mostly back to the crowd, and installs defaults absent from chat (Claude Fable 5 answers "cerulean" for colour 0% of the time in chat, 100% in JSON). Full-battery controls reveal a register gradient: compression is significant and specific to the answer-delivery formats models are trained to speak (JSON -0.22 bits, p=.0002; XML -0.19, p=.002), absent for YAML and CSV, and reversed for an arbitrary bracket wrapper (+0.13, p=.009) -- weighing the mechanism toward tool-use post-training. Enforcing the schema at the decoder (response_format) compresses no further than the request (-0.03 bits): the collapse lives in the model's response to the register, not the decoder. Structured output is how software consumes language models, and that surface is served by a measurably more homogeneous model than the chat surface on which models are evaluated, compared, and chosen.

Scaffolding the Strategist: Architecture-Dependent Reasoning Interventions in Hotelling Spatial Markets

We investigate whether structured reasoning interventions improve the strategic economic reasoning of large language models, and whether their effects depend on model architecture. Using Hotelling's linear city model as a diagnostic vehicle, we evaluate GPT-4.1-mini (a standard instruction-following model) and GPT-5-mini (a reasoning-optimized model) under five conditions - an unscaffolded baseline and four reasoning interventions - across eight questions spanning deductive and abductive reasoning, three prompt framings, and three repetitions per condition, yielding 720 individually judged responses. We find a statistically significant crossover interaction between scaffolding type and model architecture ($t(7) = 4.79$, $p = 0.002$, $d = 1.69$): commitment scaffolding improves the standard model ($+0.21$) while degrading the reasoning model ($-0.63$), and principled separation shows the opposite pattern ($-0.40$ vs. $+0.31$). Both crossovers are individually significant (commitment: $p = 0.040$; separation: $p = 0.002$) and hold across all eight questions with 7/8 directional consistency. Adversarial stress-testing harms both models, with $2.6\times$ greater degradation for the reasoning model ($-1.47$ vs. $-0.57$; $p = 0.038$), and the damage correlates negatively with baseline difficulty ($R^2 = 0.36$, $p = 0.014$). We further document a persistent declarative-procedural gap in which both models identify correct strategies at rates far exceeding their ability to execute them; separation fully closes this gap for the reasoning model while no intervention helps the standard model.

The Capability Frontier: Benchmarks Miss 82% of Model Performance

Existing benchmarks typically report accuracy for a single model on a single run. This systematically understates real-world LLM capabilities, particularly under heterogeneous data distributions: (i) different models get different questions correct according to their specializations, and (ii) given a budget, multiple generations can be sampled and selectively retained. To quantify this gap, we introduce the Capability Frontier: a Pareto frontier over a set of models that characterizes the best achievable performance at each cost level under optimal selection across models and generations (i.e., via an oracle). Our construction corrects for two opposing biases: underestimation from single-model evaluation and overestimation from taking maxima over noisy samples. We study 21 LLMs across 16 widely used benchmarks spanning coding, reasoning, medicine, factuality, instruction following, and agentic tasks, comparing Capability Frontier performance at matched cost to each benchmark's top-performing model. Correcting for single-model evaluation yields a 54% error rate reduction; additionally correcting for single runs yields an 82% improvement, with SOTA accuracy matched at 85% cost reduction. Complementing these empirical results, we use controlled probabilistic simulations to show that higher query topic entropy produces a near-monotonic increase in the performance gap between oracle routing and the best single model. Our findings suggest collective LLM capabilities are substantially underestimated, with implications for evaluation and deployment in data-heterogeneous, multi-domain settings.

Transformer-Based Language Models Across Domain Verticals: Architectures, Applications and Critical Assessment

Transformer-based language models have become the default substrate for natural language processing and the pace of new releases has made it hard for practitioners to separate durable ideas from the noise of incremental announcements. This review works at two levels. At the level of mechanism, we organise the main transformer families into a working taxonomy, covering encoder-only, decoder-only, encoder-decoder, long-context, permutation-based, and generator-discriminator variants. We then extend the discussion to post-2023 developments that changed the picture in practice: instruction tuning, reinforcement learning from human feedback, direct preference optimisation, mixture-of-experts scaling, retrieval augmentation and the current flagship model families from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Mistral and DeepSeek. At the level of use, we survey deployments across healthcare, finance, legal, education, customer service, creative writing and scientific work. Based on this we link each to the specific capabilities that make a transformer the appropriate tool. The contribution of this paper is a critical assessment that is based on the survey. We compare architectures on four axes that matter to deployment decisions, we quantify the trade-off between parameter count and energy cost. We also discuss how alignment methods, data provenance and benchmark saturation change what it means to call a model "state of the art". The final section lists the research questions that we think deserve more attention.

Correct Looks Better: Pairwise Comparisons Reveal Accuracy Rankings

Pairwise comparisons combined with aggregation methods like Elo have become central to evaluating generative models, yet concerns remain that they reward superficial stylistic cues or display judge biases. In a more positive turn, we show that model rankings from pairwise comparisons strongly agree with ground-truth-based accuracy rankings when such ground truth is available for comparison. By converting five well-known benchmarks into free-form generative evaluations, we find that Elo rankings achieve a Spearman correlation above 0.9 with accuracy rankings and substantially outperform direct evaluation when the judge is weak. Furthermore, style and judge bias have only minor effects on model rankings, despite most judgments occurring on pairs where both candidate answers are correct (or incorrect). On such pairs, we find that repetition after the final answer (echo) is a causal driver of judge preference.

CoEval: Ranking Language Models for Custom Tasks Without Labeled Data or Trustworthy Benchmarks

Selecting a pretrained language model, or evaluating a fine-tuned one, for a specific application is a high-value decision, yet the public benchmarks used to make it are poorly suited: a generic benchmark need not reflect a particular sub-domain or sub-task, and its scores are suspect when its items have leaked into pretraining and are recalled rather than solved. We present CoEval, an open framework that supplies a trustworthy, task-specific signal through ensemble self-evaluation: from a task or domain description, a pool of models rotates through all three roles, teacher, student, and judge, to generate a fresh, contamination-free benchmark, answer it, and score one another, with no human labels or raters. Because every model also answers as a student, the responses are the data that weight each question by its discriminative power and each judge by its consensus with the panel. Where ground truth exists, CoEval recovers the true ranking and tracks objective correctness at \r{ho}=0.86, and the weighting recovers the gold ranking of thirteen models at Spearman 0.95. Reliability comes from panel composition, not size: this label-free weighting zeroes out broken judges and down-weights saturated questions, so neither distorts the ranking. Generated items show zero verbatim overlap with five public benchmarks, the panel cancels verbosity bias and precludes same-family self-preference, and rankings are domain-specific: three different models top four de-novo domains, so a generic leaderboard misdirects most practitioners. The same pipeline reruns on each model release, giving any team a contamination-free leaderboard for its application.

The Pinocchio Dimension: Phenomenality of Experience as the Primary Axis of LLM Psychometric Differences

We administer 45 validated psychometric questionnaires to 50 large language models (LLMs) to identify the dimensions along which LLMs differ psychometrically. Using Supervised Semantic Differential (SSD), we find that the primary axis of between-model variance separates items describing phenomenally rich experience, including embodied sensation, felt affect, inner speech, imagery, and empathy, from items describing stimulus-driven behavioral reactivity ($R^2_{adj}=.037$, $p<.0001$). To test this hypothesis at the item level, we introduce the Pinocchio score ($π_i$), the ratio of inter-model response variance under neutral prompting to that under a human-simulation prompt, as an annotation-free measure of each item's experiential demand. $π_i$ predicts condition-induced shifts in primary factor loading magnitudes ($ρ=-.215$, $p<.0001$, $n=1292$--$1310$ items), confirming that between-model divergence on experiential items is structured rather than noisy. Applying PCA to per-model EFA scores across all questionnaires reveals one dominant dimension, the Pinocchio Axis ($Π$): the degree to which a model presents itself as a locus of phenomenal experience rather than a system of behavioral responses. This axis captures 47.1% of cross-questionnaire between-model variance in primary factor scores and converges with item-level Pinocchio scores ($r=.864$). Marked within-provider divergence across closely related model variants is consistent with post-training fine-tuning as a key contributor, supporting the interpretation that $Π$ reflects a training-shaped self-representational tendency governing how a model treats experiential language as self-applicable. The dominant axis of between-model psychometric variation is therefore not a conventional personality trait but a self-representational stance toward one's own nature as an experiencer.