Reading Without a Reader:
Large Language Models Collapse the Brain’s Dissociated
Reading and Writing Systems into a Single Entangled Code

Reading is not an evolved faculty. On the neuronal recycling hypothesis (Dehaene and Cohen, 2007), the cultural invention of writing (too recent for natural selection to have shaped a dedicated organ) colonizes and repurposes phylogenetically older visual and language cortex, inheriting its computational constraints. The empirical anchor is the Visual Word Form Area, a patch of left ventral occipitotemporal cortex that becomes selectively responsive to orthographic strings only in literate readers (Dehaene and Cohen, 2011). Learning to read measurably reorganizes the brain, sharpening visual responses and reshaping functional and even structural connectivity (Carreiras et al., 2009). Reading is thus an acquired overlay on evolved hardware, a point we return to when interpreting the acquisition of orthographic structure in a from-scratch transformer.

Crucially for our thesis, reading (decoding) and writing (encoding) are doubly dissociable. Pure alexia without agraphia (loss of reading with spared writing, attributable to a disconnection of visual input from the word-processing network) dates to Déjerine (1892) and supplies the first half of the dissociation logic. Its mirror image, pure agraphia, isolates a writing deficit with preserved reading; the writing system has its own architecture, including an abstract graphemic buffer that holds letter identity and order during spelling (Caramazza et al., 1987) and a writing-specific frontal locus (Exner’s area) implicated by direct cortical stimulation (Roux et al., 2009). Even decoding alone is not monolithic: dual-route models posit parallel lexical and grapheme–phoneme pathways (Coltheart et al., 2001). At the same time the two are not fully independent. Within-subject imaging and lesion evidence indicate a shared orthographic core, with overlapping left ventral occipitotemporal and inferior frontal representations serving both spelling and reading (Purcell et al., 2017). The human picture is two systems with their own failure modes over a partially shared substrate (precisely the structure we ask whether a decoder-only LLM reproduces or collapses).

Writing is a recent technology: proto-cuneiform accounting marks appear around 3300 BCE (Spar, 2004), making literacy a roughly five-millennium-old invention that each child must be explicitly taught. A striking behavioural consequence is that phonemic awareness does not arise spontaneously but is a consequence of alphabetic literacy (illiterate adults fail phoneme-manipulation tasks that matched late-literate adults pass; Morais et al., 1979). This contrasts sharply with spoken language, acquired universally and without instruction and best characterized as an evolved instinct (Pinker, 1994). Our thesis rests on this asymmetry: an LLM optimizes the cultural artifact, not the evolved faculty.

It does so at a data cost orders of magnitude beyond the human reference. Children are exposed to on the order of $10^{7}$–$10^{8}$ words by adolescence whereas competitive models consume trillions of tokens; the BabyLM challenge frames this gap and proposes developmentally plausible budgets (Warstadt et al., 2023). Chollet (2019) reframes intelligence itself as skill-acquisition efficiency relative to priors and experience, which makes the human–machine data gap a difference in kind rather than degree. We treat any human–machine token comparison as illustrative and order-of-magnitude only: web text is not child-directed speech, and humans receive multimodal, embodied, interactive input.

The mechanism LLMs bring to this artifact is general-purpose self-attention (Vaswani et al., 2017), a modality-agnostic routing operation rather than a language-specific faculty. Mechanistic interpretability has made parts of it legible: the residual-stream formalism of Elhage et al. (2021) casts each component as reading from and writing to a shared activation stream and identifies how attention heads compose into induction heads, circuits implementing prefix-matching copy that underwrite much of emergent in-context learning (Olsson et al., 2022). Complementary analyses show heads specialize into interpretable roles, with a small number doing most of the work (Voita et al., 2019).

The geometric heart of our contribution concerns the input embedding $\mathbf{W}_{E}$, which maps tokens into the stream, and the output unembedding $\mathbf{W}_{U}$, which maps the stream out to next-token logits. Our “reading/writing” labels track the brain’s input-reading, output-writing convention; note this is the reverse of the residual-stream usage of Elhage et al. (2021), in which components write to and read from the stream. We mean input- versus output-side only, and since $\mathbf{W}_{E}$ and $\mathbf{W}_{U}$ are indexed by BPE tokens rather than graphemes, we reserve “orthographic” for the sub-token word-form analysis. Weight tying sets $\mathbf{W}_{E}=\mathbf{W}_{U}^{\top}$, forcing the two codes to be identical (Press and Wolf, 2017; Inan et al., 2017); it is standard in the GPT-2 family and OPT, and is the architectural condition under which reading and writing are entangled by construction. The Pythia suite leaves the embeddings untied, learning $\mathbf{W}_{E}$ and $\mathbf{W}_{U}$ separately and exposing aligned checkpoints that let us watch the two codes differentiate over training (Biderman et al., 2023).

The closest prior work to the geometric half of our study is Lopardo et al. (2026), which measures alignment between input and output embeddings and reports that output gradients dominate early training, biasing token embeddings toward the output space and producing an asymmetric drift. We credit that work for first reporting this trajectory; our Experiment 7 is a controlled, properly nulled replication on the read/write axis, adding an independent-init floor, a shuffled-token null, a tied ceiling, and a frequency-decile decomposition that addresses the gradient-exposure confound. To compare $\mathbf{W}_{E}$ and $\mathbf{W}_{U}$ as representational spaces we use established similarity measures (linear CKA, Kornblith et al., 2019; orthogonal-Procrustes residual with per-token cosine, Smith et al., 2017; and mutual $k$-nearest-neighbor overlap, Huh et al., 2024), all situated within the representational-similarity tradition (Kriegeskorte et al., 2008). That $\mathbf{W}_{E}$ and $\mathbf{W}_{U}$ should be coupled but not identical in untied models is consistent with evidence that the output embedding is functionally specialized rather than a transpose of the input embedding, encoding token-probability and frequency structure (Cho et al., 2024). Because performance improves predictably with scale and data (Kaplan et al., 2020), we interpret any geometry along the scale axis against that backdrop and report its trend honestly as flat and underpowered.

A final strand asks what such systems are. Balanced surveys call for an extended science of intelligence that catalogs distinct modes of understanding rather than forcing a binary verdict (Mitchell and Krakauer, 2023). A long-running critique holds that form learned from distribution cannot by itself yield grounded meaning: the symbol-grounding regress (Harnad, 1990) and the “stochastic parrot” framing (Bender et al., 2021). The most directly operationalizable formulation for our purposes is the dissociation of formal from functional linguistic competence: LLMs are strong on formal patterns yet patchy on functional, world-directed use, paralleling a neural dissociation between the brain’s language network and its reasoning systems (Mahowald et al., 2024; Fedorenko et al., 2024). We extend this form/function axis with a second, brain-anchored read/write axis. Finally, psycholinguistics treats comprehension and production as distinct-but-coupled systems linked by forward models (Pickering and Garrod, 2013), and recent work leverages human production–interpretation asymmetries to probe LLM cognitive plausibility (Lam et al., 2025). We attempted the corresponding behavioural test and report in Section 4.8 why it cannot be constructed at the output of a decoder-only model. The positioning is therefore conservative: we ask not whether LLMs understand, but whether the way they realize functional literacy (by collapsing the brain’s dissociated read/write architecture into one entangled statistical code) places them at a distinct point in the space of possible minds.

We use two model families that differ in exactly the property of interest: whether the reading and writing codes are forced to be identical.

To quantify how similar the reading code $\mathbf{W}_{E}$ and the writing code $\mathbf{W}_{U}$ are, we compare the two $|V|\times d$ matrices with three complementary representational-similarity measures, each invariant to a different nuisance transformation, following standard practice in the similarity-of-representations literature (Kriegeskorte et al., 2008).

It helps to picture each matrix as a map that places every vocabulary token at a point in space, so that $\mathbf{W}_{E}$ and $\mathbf{W}_{U}$ are two maps of the same set of tokens. The three measures then ask three different questions about whether the maps agree. The first asks whether they agree on the overall pattern of which tokens sit near which, ignoring any difference in overall size or orientation. The second asks whether one map can be rotated bodily onto the other, and how much disagreement is left over after the best possible rotation. The third ignores global shape entirely and asks a local question: for each token individually, are its nearest neighbours the same on both maps? A pair of codes could score high on one and low on another (two maps can share a global shape while disagreeing token by token), which is why we report all three rather than any single one.

1. 1.

   Linear CKA (centered kernel alignment) between $\mathbf{W}_{E}$ and $\mathbf{W}_{U}$, a scale- and rotation-invariant global similarity of the two row-space geometries (Kornblith et al., 2019); this is our primary metric.

2. 2.

   Orthogonal Procrustes residual plus mean per-token cosine: we solve for the orthogonal map $R$ minimizing $\lVert\mathbf{W}_{E}R-\mathbf{W}_{U}\rVert_{F}$ and report the residual and the resulting per-token cosine similarity, testing whether the two codes are the same space up to a rotation/reflection (Smith et al., 2017).

3. 3.

   Mutual $k$-nearest-neighbor overlap, the fraction of each token’s $k$ nearest neighbors in $\mathbf{W}_{E}$ that are also neighbors in $\mathbf{W}_{U}$, a local/neighborhood-structure measure (Huh et al., 2024).

We fuse these into a single composite entanglement index $\mathcal{E}\in[0,1]$. Writing $c$ for linear CKA, $r$ for the Procrustes residual, $\bar{\theta}$ for the mean per-token cosine, and $o$ for mean mutual-$k$NN overlap ($k=10$), and using the tied-model ceiling and the independent-init floor (below) to normalize each component to $[0,1]$ via $\tilde{m}=\mathrm{clip}\!\big((m-m_{\text{floor}})/(m_{\text{ceil}}-m_{\text{floor}}),0,1\big)$ (with the residual oriented as $1-r$), we define $\mathcal{E}$ as the unweighted mean of the four normalized components,

so $\mathcal{E}=1$ at the tied ceiling and $\mathcal{E}=0$ at the independent-init floor. The two anchors are what make the number mean anything, in the way a temperature scale needs two fixed points before a reading is informative: a raw similarity value cannot be called high or low until one knows what fully unrelated codes score (the floor) and what deliberately identical codes score (the ceiling). We always report the raw components alongside $\mathcal{E}$ so the composite never hides a divergent component, and we verified the trends are not an artifact of the equal-weighting choice. To make $\mathcal{E}$ interpretable we anchor it against three controls:

• •

  a tied ceiling: for tied models $\mathbf{W}_{U}=\mathbf{W}_{E}$, so $\mathcal{E}=1$ exactly (a sanity check on the pipeline, not an empirical finding);

• •

  an independent-initialization floor: $\mathcal{E}$ between two freshly, independently initialized matrices, the value expected with no shared learning (empirically near zero on every component);

• •

  a shuffled-token null: $\mathcal{E}$ recomputed after randomly permuting the token-to-row correspondence between $\mathbf{W}_{E}$ and $\mathbf{W}_{U}$, which destroys any token-aligned structure while preserving each matrix’s marginal geometry.

For the training-trajectory analysis (§3.3, Exp. 7) we additionally decompose $\mathcal{E}$ and the per-matrix drift by token frequency decile, to separate genuine read/write differentiation from the confound that frequent tokens simply receive more gradient updates on the output side. All headline similarity values are reported with bootstrap $95\%$ confidence intervals (2,000 resamples, percentile method); the independent-init floor is computed per model from two Gaussian matrices matched to each code’s scale under a fixed seed, and mutual-$k$NN uses $k=10$ with query subsampling for tractability on the full vocabulary. We note one interpretive caveat inherited from this design: $\mathbf{W}_{E}$ and $\mathbf{W}_{U}$ are compared in a common token basis, so the metrics are sensitive to the byte-pair tokenization shared by the two codes rather than to any sub-symbolic orthography.

The ten experiments trace a single arc: the first six (Exps. 1–6) consolidate established results, Exp. 7 introduces the read/write analysis in the weights, and Exps. 8–10 are the three attempts to test it at the output. Self-attention is the general mechanism (Exp. 1) that acquires written language as a cultural overlay (Exp. 2) at a large data cost (Exp. 3), mastering form before meaning (Exp. 4) by fitting and storing text statistics (Exps. 5–6); on top of this we ask whether the model carries a single entangled read/write code (Exp. 7) and whether it behaves coupled rather than doubly dissociated (Exp. 8).

All experiments run in fp32 by default: we observed that fp16 produces NaNs on the GPT-NeoX/Pythia models, and bf16 requires torch $\geq 2.1$. We use fixed random seeds and frozen stimulus sets (including the author-made situation-tracking and tool-innovation items) so that every reported number is reproducible on a single RTX 4070. All models and benchmarks we use are publicly available (the GPT-2, OPT, and Pythia/GPT-NeoX checkpoints, and the Pile, BLiMP, and PIQA), so every result can be regenerated from public sources following the procedures described above.

In-context copying is supported by induction heads in every model we examine. Prefix-matching induction scores are high across all eight small open models, ranging from $0.869$ (pythia-70m) to $0.978$ (pythia-160m), far above the $\sim$$0.011$ chance rate expected for a random head (Table B1; Appendix Figure A1). To test whether these heads are causally implicated in in-context learning (ICL) rather than merely correlated with it, we zero-ablate the single top induction head and measure the change in a synthetic copy-completion ICL score relative to a 24-random-head null. The effect is significant for opt-125m ($z=9.57$), pythia-160m ($z=4.25$), and pythia-410m ($z=2.07$) (all permutation $p=0.04$, which is the resolution floor $1/25$ of the 24-head null, not a precise estimate); it is weak or non-significant in the GPT-2 family. Crucially, we also ablate the MLP block at the same layer: its effect on ICL is comparable to or larger than the head’s (e.g. pythia-70m $\Delta\mathrm{ICL}=2.16$ for the MLP vs $1.41$ for the head). We therefore scope the claim narrowly: induction circuits are causally implicated in ICL, not that attention dominates the MLP. Across models the relationship between maximum induction score and in-context gain is positive but does not reach significance (Spearman $\rho=0.57$, $p=0.139$, $n=8$; Appendix Figure A2). We report this small-$n$ cross-model trend as suggestive.

This mechanism is not specific to language: self-attention is a general information-routing operation (Vaswani et al., 2017; Elhage et al., 2021) rather than a language-specific faculty. What follows is what that general mechanism does when its training signal is written language.

A from-scratch transformer has no evolved substrate for orthography; any sensitivity to legal letter sequences must be acquired. Using the aligned Pythia checkpoints, we measure an orthographic word-form gap, defined as $\mathrm{bpb}(\text{illegal})-\mathrm{bpb}(\text{real})$ over the continuation tokens of a word form (carrier masked), ordered real $<$ legal-pseudoword $<$ illegal at every checkpoint. The raw gap is dominated by a tokenization confound (illegal consonant strings fragment into many more BPE sub-tokens than real words), so for pythia-160m it is already large at random initialization ($5.88$ bits/byte) and, if anything, shrinks as the model learns to compress all three classes (to $4.38$ at the final checkpoint). The genuine, acquired signal appears only once this confound is removed: the token-count–residualized gap grows over training from $1.48$ to $1.85$ bits/byte, and a token-count–matched subset grows from $2.93$ to $3.80$ (Table B2; Figure 1). Orthographic word-form selectivity is therefore acquired over training, as the neuronal-recycling framing predicts for a cultural skill, though we cannot fully exclude residual subword-frequency structure. We do not claim a clean co-onset with the induction phase change: the raw-gap onset is itself a tokenization artifact (its maximum-slope step is step 1), and, as we show next, the induction circuit is causally unrelated to the gap. We thus report the controlled word-form gap as a gradually acquired code rather than one temporally locked to circuit emergence.

We confirm the same orthographic distinction directly. A linear probe separates real/legal/illegal word forms with $0.933$ three-class accuracy at pythia-160m’s best layer (layer 8), well above both chance ($0.333$) and a permutation null ($0.352$), and a token-count–matched real-vs-scrambled control ($0.869$) rules out token-count leakage (Table B3). Decodability peaks in mid-to-late layers, the “letterbox” depth profile (Figure 2).

Critically, this orthographic code is not carried by the induction circuit. Ablating the top induction head (L4H6 in pythia-160m) leaves the word-form gap essentially intact: it moves from a clean $4.324$ to $4.361$ under ablation, a fraction remaining of $1.009$ (a matched random-head control shifts the gap by only $-0.001$; the gap does not collapse). This is an honest negative: the mechanism that supports in-context copying (Section 4.1) is dissociable from the one that encodes orthographic legality. We emphasize that the analogy to the visual word form area and neuronal recycling (Dehaene and Cohen, 2007, 2011; Morais et al., 1979) is to acquisition timing only; a randomly initialized transformer has no pre-existing evolved cortex to recycle.

Both loss and grammaticality improve smoothly as a function of tokens seen (Table LABEL:tab:exp3_data_dynamics). For pythia-160m, perplexity on held-out text falls from $\sim$$6.3\times 10^{4}$ at step 1 to $\sim$$50$ at the final checkpoint, while BLiMP grammaticality rises from chance ($0.484$) to $0.744$; the larger pythia-410m reaches $0.805$. An across-size loss-vs-$N$ power law at the final checkpoint has exponent $\alpha_{N}=0.100$ (with the within-run fits flagged as autocorrelated, so their intervals understate uncertainty). The machine reaches this competence only after $\sim$$3\times 10^{11}$ tokens ($\sim$$2.3\times 10^{11}$ word-equivalents assuming a nominal $1.3$ tokens/word), three to four orders of magnitude beyond the $\sim$100M-word budget a child has by age 13 (band 50–200M words, i.e. 65–260M tokens; Warstadt et al., 2023). We treat the human comparison as illustrative and order-of-magnitude only: children receive multimodal, embodied, interactive, child-directed input, whereas the Pile is adult written text, so this is not a confirmed cognitive equivalence (Chollet, 2019).

Across the Pythia scale ladder, formal competence (BLiMP grammaticality) exceeds and saturates ahead of functional competence (Table B5). At the top of our ladder, pythia-1.4b reaches BLiMP $0.824$ [$0.807$, $0.841$] while its functional composite (the mean of the PIQA physical-commonsense, situation-tracking, and absurdity-detection accuracies) reaches $0.757$, a form$-$function gap of $0.067$. Form rises early and plateaus; function lags and remains below it. These results hold under a difficulty/length-matched control and a PPMI surface baseline, following the formal/functional distinction of Mahowald et al. (2024); Fedorenko et al. (2024). We are candid that the gap is modest at 1.4b, that the situation-tracking items are author-made and templated (frozen across runs), and that there is no human ceiling; the claim is scoped to these probes, not to meaning in general (Harnad, 1990).

Compression of held-out text improves as a clean power law in non-embedding parameters: bits/byte falls from $1.49$ (pythia-14m) to $0.82$ (pythia-1.4b) with exponent $\alpha=0.090$ [$0.080$, $0.107$] and $R^{2}=0.984$ (no-offset fit; Table B6), consistent with established scaling laws (Kaplan et al., 2020).

Compared against a Kneser-Ney BPE $n$-gram on the same tokenization, the interpretable signal is the scaling of the neural$-$$n$-gram gap, not the raw overlap. The neural/$n$-gram perplexity ratio falls from $0.221$ (pythia-14m) to $0.025$ (pythia-1.4b): the neural model increasingly outpaces the $n$-gram with scale (Table B7). Top-1 next-token agreement between the $n$-gram and pythia-160m is only $0.290$, with a symmetric KL of $3.03$ nats, so we frame the result around the scaling of the gap rather than claiming the $n$-gram recovers most of the model.

The neural model is also consistently more fragile to word-order corruption than the $n$-gram: the model$-$$n$-gram excess $\Delta$NLL under a length-5 window shuffle grows with scale, from $0.96$ nats (pythia-14m) to $1.66$ nats (pythia-1.4b) (Table LABEL:tab:exp5_perturbation). Zipf reproduction is demoted to a descriptive observation, since its own shuffled control shows it to be near-trivial.

Three separate probes characterize the model as a text repository operating against a distributional ceiling; we report them separately rather than merged (Table B8). First, extractable verbatim memorization of Pile text grows log-linearly with scale, with slope $0.011$ [$0.007$, $0.017$] in $\log$ non-embedding parameters ($R^{2}\approx 0.63$), against a non-member negative control consistent with prior memorization laws (Carlini et al., 2023). Second, on three-choice tool-use items, the imitation$-$innovation gap reaches $0.090$ while a PPMI rarity baseline reproduces a gap of $0.000$, so the innovation deficit is not explained by option rarity (Yiu et al., 2024). Third, on a bounded symbol-grounding demonstration, hidden-state geometry tracks perceptual size norms with $|\rho|$ up to $0.83$ (rising with scale), beating a PPMI baseline ($|\rho|$ max $0.51$), whereas for lightness the model does not beat the PPMI baseline (Figure 4; Harnad, 1990). The three probes measure different constructs, and “repository, not abstraction” is a hypothesis, not proven by any single one.

We now turn to the central claim. We treat the input embedding $\mathbf{W}_{E}$ as a “reading code” (the input-side token code) and the output unembedding $\mathbf{W}_{U}$ as a “writing code” (the output-side token code); we use “reading/ writing” for the input/output side only, and reserve “orthographic” for the sub-token word-form analysis of Section 4.2, since $\mathbf{W}_{E}$ and $\mathbf{W}_{U}$ are indexed by BPE tokens, not graphemes. We quantify their entanglement with a composite index $\mathcal{E}\in[0,1]$ fusing linear CKA (Kornblith et al., 2019), an orthogonal-Procrustes residual with per-token cosine (Smith et al., 2017), and mutual $k$-NN overlap (Huh et al., 2024), against an independent-init floor, a shuffled-token null, and a tied ceiling (Kriegeskorte et al., 2008).

The tied models (gpt2, gpt2-medium, opt-125m, opt-350m) return $\mathcal{E}=1.000$by construction ($\mathbf{W}_{E}=\mathbf{W}_{U}^{\top}$; Press and Wolf, 2017; Inan et al., 2017); this is a pipeline sanity check, not a finding. The untied Pythia models are the substance: $\mathcal{E}$ ranges from $0.226$ to $0.349$, with every component measure far above its independent-init floor (Table B9; Figure 5). In plain terms, the two codes sit roughly a third of the way from “completely unrelated” to “forced to be identical”. The reading and writing codes are thus coupled but sub-ceiling: one entangled code, not the two dissociated systems of the brain, and also not a trivial collapse onto a single shared matrix. The coupling is genuine per-token structure rather than a global-subspace artifact: the observed per-token cosine and mutual-kNN overlap greatly exceed both a shuffled-token null and the independent-init floor in every untied model (Table B10). The sub-ceiling differentiation is moreover consistent with evidence that the output embedding is functionally specialized rather than a mirror of the input embedding (Cho et al., 2024).

The training trajectory is non-monotonic and informative (Figure 6). For pythia-160m, $\mathbf{W}_{E}$/$\mathbf{W}_{U}$ CKA starts at $0.015$ (initialization, effectively independent), rises to $0.254$ by step 1000, peaks at $0.494$ at step 4000, then differentiates back down to $0.408$ at step 64000 and $0.210$ at the final step 143000: the codes couple early and then partly pull apart. This differentiation is asymmetric: at step 143000 the writing code has drifted $\sim$$3.2\times$ as far as the reading code from initialization (drift $\mathbf{W}_{U}=5.12$ vs drift $\mathbf{W}_{E}=1.58$). This asymmetric-drift trajectory was first reported by Lopardo et al. (2026); our contribution here is a controlled replication on the read/write axis, with an independent-init floor, a shuffled-token null, and a frequency-decile decomposition addressing the gradient-exposure confound. That confound (the worry that $\mathbf{W}_{U}$ simply “moves more” because the output matrix receives a softmax gradient on every step while input rows update only for tokens seen) is ruled out by decomposing the drift by token-frequency decile: the writing code drifts roughly $3\times$ as far as the reading code in every decile, from the rarest to the most frequent tokens (Table B11), so the asymmetry is not carried by frequent tokens alone.

Having found one coupled read/write code in the weights, we set out to test the matching behavioural prediction: that comprehension and production should fail together rather than dissociate. We report here that this test, and two successive redesigns of it, could not be made valid. The obstacles are not implementation defects but properties of what the measurements are: each attempt reduced to an algebraic identity between the two scores, or to a quantity with no identified scale. We give the three results because they are, we think, the substantive finding of this half of the paper. In a model whose reading and writing are read off one next-token distribution, no pair of output-side scores isolates one ability from the other, and that is a form of entanglement no index had to be constructed to see.

The positive result of this paper is a calibrated measurement at one level. In the untied Pythia models the input embedding $\mathbf{W}_{E}$ (the “reading code”) and the output unembedding $\mathbf{W}_{U}$ (the “writing code”) are coupled but sub-ceiling: the entanglement index settles roughly a third of the way up its range, far above the independent-initialization floor yet well below the tied ceiling that GPT-2 and OPT realize by construction. The number is interpretable because it has both a floor and a ceiling; the trajectory adds that the coupling is not monotone but a couple-then-differentiate program, and that the differentiation is carried almost entirely by $\mathbf{W}_{U}$.

We set out to pair this with a behavioural double dissociation test and could not build one that was valid, across three designs (Section 4.8). It would be easy to present that as a limitation and move on. We think it is more than that, because the three failures share a cause. Comprehension and production, as anything at the output can define them, are both functionals of one next-token distribution; any two scalar summaries of that distribution therefore share terms, and the shared terms generate exactly the coupling one is trying to detect. In the contingency design the shared structure is set-theoretic: greedy production implies a vocabulary-wide argmax, so production’s successes are a subset of comprehension’s, and for single-token pairs the alexia cell is empty by theorem rather than by measurement. In the lesion design it is algebraic: the comprehension margin and the production capability both contain the target’s own log-probability, whose movement alone accounts for most of the variance in each, so their apparent co-variation is largely a restatement of that fact. Between these sits a purely statistical obstacle: with damage distributions as heavy-tailed as these, no linear standardization puts the two on a common scale, and the rank transform that does is bounded, which costs the family-wise test its power.

The upshot is a sharper claim than the behavioural coupling we originally reported, and it does not depend on any index we constructed. Reading and writing in a decoder-only model are not merely coupled in the weights; at the output they are not separately addressable at all. That is what one should expect of a single forward path, and it is worth saying plainly rather than leaving as an unexamined architectural assumption. It is also why we are careful, below, not to read the weight-level coupling as though a behavioural dissociation had been ruled out empirically. It has not been tested; we argue it cannot be, by these means.

This matters because it inverts the organization observed in the literate human brain. There, reading and writing doubly dissociate: pure alexia spares writing while abolishing reading (Déjerine, 1892), and pure agraphia spares reading while abolishing writing (Caramazza et al., 1987; Roux et al., 2009), with only a partial shared orthographic core (Purcell et al., 2017; Coltheart et al., 2001). This $\mathbf{W}_{E}$/$\mathbf{W}_{U}$ contrast is an analogy, not a homology (see Section 6): alexia and agraphia motivate the question but are not measured here, and we intend no claim of literal reading, writing, or “understanding.” With that disclaimer in force, the contrast is informative precisely because the model and the brain fall on opposite sides of it. The brain builds literacy by recruiting two pre-existing, dissociable circuits onto a culturally invented artifact (Dehaene and Cohen, 2007, 2011; Morais et al., 1979); the decoder-only LLM builds the same functional competence by collapsing decoding and encoding into one autoregressive mechanism. Behaviourally it shows no read/write dissociation (Section 4); in this sense it “reads without a reader and writes without a writer.” We are careful to scope this to behaviour: we have not performed the model analog of a lesion study (a localized intervention that selectively removes comprehension while sparing production, or vice versa), so the stronger claim that no dissociable component exists is a conjecture we leave to future work, not a measured result.

This places decoder-only language models as a distinct point in the space of possible minds (Sloman, 1984; Shanahan, 2025): systems that attain a recent cultural skill (written language, an invention of roughly five millennia, not an evolved faculty; Pinker, 1994) through an architecture whose internal division of labour bears no structural resemblance to the brain that invented the artifact. We read this not as a deficiency but as a characterization. Following Shanahan (2025) and Mitchell and Krakauer (2023), the appropriate move is to catalogue the mode of intelligence on its own terms rather than to score it against a human template, and our two-level convergence supplies one concrete, measurable axis (read/write entanglement) on which the machine and the brain are organized oppositely.

The training trajectory clarifies how the single code arises. In pythia-160m the $\mathbf{W}_{E}$/$\mathbf{W}_{U}$ relationship is non-monotonic: from an essentially uncorrelated initialization the two matrices first couple sharply, peak early in training, and then partially differentiate for the remainder of it. The differentiation is asymmetric, the writing code drifting several times farther from initialization than the reading code, and by the same factor in every frequency decile, which rules out the frequent-token gradient-exposure explanation (Section 4.7). As noted above, we credit Lopardo et al. (2026) for first reporting this asymmetric output-side drift; our controlled, read/write-axis replication is detailed in Section 4.7. The picture is a “couple-then-differentiate” developmental program that nonetheless terminates in coupling, not dissociation.

We regard the negative results as load-bearing, not embarrassing, and report them plainly. Three are central.