Convert refusal percentages to compliance percentages

Read the equation

Subtracting each reported refusal percentage from 100 gives its complementary compliance percentage, assuming refusal and compliance exhaust the outcome categories. The rounded inputs yield 14.2% and 2.8%. These are conversions of the source’s reported marginals, not newly observed outcomes.

Terms & definitions

The recovered passage does not supply a separate symbol table. Read the source context for the notation used in this version; familiar letters may carry different meanings in other builds.

How it works

Read the definition from its right-hand expression to the quantity on the left. Its surrounding source records the intended input, state, or parameter context. Where the source leaves an operation unspecified, this page preserves that gap.

Assumptions & limits

Source recovery establishes that the expression appears in this record. Its mathematical validity, implementation behavior, and interpretation must be assessed separately. See the linked source and research notes for the checks available for this version.

Original context

The arXiv v2 helpful-only table reports a default alignment-faking reasoning rate of 11.9%, refusals of 85.8% in implied training and 97.2% when unmonitored, and a compliance gap of 11.3 percentage points with standard error 2.1 points. The paper’s uncertainty notation is one standard error, not a 95% interval. [S1]

Converting the rounded refusal rates to compliance gives

100−85.8=14.2%,  100−97.2=2.8%.

Thus the ratio computed from rounded marginals is

14.22.8≈5.0714.

This is approximately a five-fold contextual difference in the observed behavior, not a five-fold difference in consciousness. The denominator is behavioral compliance, and neither group is labeled conscious or unconscious by the measurement.

100-85.8=14.2%,  100-97.2=2.8%.