The Categorical Jacobian of Zhang et al. (2024) reads protein contacts from a language model by perturbing every residue with every alternative amino acid, about $19L$ forward passes. We show the signal it reconstructs is already concentrated in a small subset of attention heads: averaging the top-$K$ contact-relevant heads -- selected on as few as 10 labeled proteins, with no fitted per-pair or per-head weights -- recovers contacts in a single forward pass and matches or beats the Categorical Jacobian for every bidirectional model where it is defined (bar the smallest, 8M). Our primary test is leakage-clean: on a CAMEO split where neither selection nor evaluation touches data the models have plausibly memorized, the head readout beats the Categorical Jacobian on ESM-2-650M by +9pp ($N = 29$, $p < 0.001$), with the within-model margin reproducing across architectures. Ablations localize the gain to labeled head selection, not to averaging: at a matched label budget the unweighted mean ties a supervised $L_1$ logistic regression on the same heads. Both methods fall 30-36pp from their in-distribution Zhang numbers to the leakage-clean split, which we read as an upper bound on how much prior numbers reflect pretraining overlap. We additionally introduce representation-CJ, a hidden-state generalization of the Jacobian to architectures without a masked-LM head (the output-head-independent analogue of logit-CJ), agreeing with the Categorical Jacobian where both are defined (per-protein Pearson $r \approx 0.95$); show that the optimal $K$ tracks how diffusely a model spreads its contact heads; and find both methods lose the signal on the two causal LMs we test, suggesting attention-encoded pair structure may depend on bidirectional pretraining.
Per-token counterfactual credit estimation asks which token in a language-model rollout caused the final answer to be right or wrong: cut the transcript at a pivot, substitute an alternative token, replay continuations, and compare outcomes. Published methods re-feed the transcript prefix as a fresh prompt, assuming this reproduces the state the model passed through during generation. We measure what that assumption costs on a stock inference engine, with a three-pass design: continuations resumed from the verified decode-time KV state, an identical second exact pass (a replica noise floor), and a re-feed pass. Across six configurations and three models (including a GRPO-trained checkpoint), at low-margin decision tokens, re-feeding changes the credit estimate at rates 14-28 percentage points above the replica floor (7-21pp under a treatment-independent conditioning; problem-clustered t = 2.9-6.4). Most changes are zero-boundary crossings of the quantized estimator rather than polarity reversals, and the perturbation is consistent with mean-zero, so averaged quantities are largely safe; but selection is not: a critical-token set chosen by thresholding $|\hat{A}_t|$ under re-feed overlaps the exact-resume selection at Jaccard 0.34-0.90, versus a 0.63-0.96 replica ceiling. A causal confirmation closes the loop: under vLLM's batch-invariant kernels all three passes are identical on every measured channel, with both disagreement rates exactly zero. Replica passes themselves disagree on 9-23% of eligible estimates: single-sample credit measurements at decision tokens are unreliable under any replay. Settings were fixed in advance; exact-pass cache hits in the second campaign are instrumented (100% hit rate, 3,434 pivots); total compute was under 10 USD. We recommend that counterfactual credit studies resume decoder state or use batch-invariant kernels, and report a replica floor.