Phase Structure in Rotary Attention: A Spectral Framework for Semantic Continuity and Execution-Boundary Governance

Extracted source text · arXiv 2607.25507

\documentclass[11pt]{article}

\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{lmodern}
\usepackage[letterpaper,margin=1in]{geometry}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,mathtools}
\usepackage{microtype}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref}

\hypersetup{
  pdftitle={Phase Structure in Rotary Attention: A Spectral Framework for Semantic Continuity and Execution-Boundary Governance},
  pdfauthor={Abraham Chachamovits},
  pdfsubject={A theoretical framework for rotary phase structure, semantic continuity, and execution-boundary governance},
  pdfkeywords={transformers, RoPE, phase geometry, spectral analysis, semantic continuity, AI governance},
  pdfcreator={LaTeX with hyperref}
}

\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand{\RePart}{\operatorname{Re}}
\newcommand{\Arg}{\operatorname{Arg}}
\newcommand{\doi}[1]{\href{https://doi.org/#1}{doi:#1}}

\setlength{\parindent}{1.5em}
\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}
\setlength{\emergencystretch}{2em}

\title{\textbf{Phase Structure in Rotary Attention}\\[0.4em]
  \large A Spectral Framework for Semantic Continuity and Execution-Boundary Governance}
\author{Abraham Chachamovits\\
  ENTRUST AI\\
  \texttt{contact@entrustai.co}}
\date{July 2026}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
Transformer language models are usually analyzed through vector geometry, yet ordered
context and rotary position encoding introduce explicit phase structure into query--key
interactions. This paper develops a bounded spectral framework for examining rotary phase
alignment, hidden-state continuity, and semantic drift without treating language models as
literal physical wave systems. It first identifies ordered hidden-state sequences, rather than
vocabulary indices, as valid domains for spectral decomposition. It then derives the Rotary
Position Embedding (RoPE) attention score as a sum of magnitude-weighted cosine terms and
proves a local stability lemma: uniformly bounded phase displacement limits degradation of the
corresponding pre-softmax score. To extend phase analysis beyond native RoPE coordinates,
the paper defines complex modal coordinates over fixed orthonormal direction pairs and
introduces a weighted coherence functional for hidden-state trajectories. These constructions
support a strict distinction between representational continuity and execution-boundary
admissibility. Internal coherence may describe preservation of task-relevant relations, but it
cannot authorize a consequential transition. Positioned against existing geometric, spectral,
phase-modulation, representation-analysis, and mechanistic-interpretability accounts, the
framework contributes a theoretical and methodological program for determining when spectral
structure explains continuity and when governance must remain an external predicate over
execution.
\end{abstract}

\noindent\textbf{Keywords:} transformers; rotary position embedding; RoPE; phase geometry;
spectral analysis; semantic continuity; representation drift; AI governance; execution
boundaries

\section{Introduction}

Modern language models are ordinarily described through geometry. Tokens are embedded as
vectors, transformed through successive layers, compared by inner products, and converted into
probability distributions over possible continuations. That account is correct and indispensable.
It identifies the spaces in which representations live and the operators through which those
representations are transformed.

Geometry, however, does not exhaust the available mathematical description. Transformer
computation also contains ordered trajectories, periodic positional operators, phase-sensitive
correlations, and distributed modes whose alignment changes across context. Rotary Position
Embedding makes this especially explicit: position is implemented as coordinated rotation, and
relative displacement appears directly inside the query--key interaction.\cite{su2024} Once that
structure is recognized, parts of transformer inference admit a spectral treatment in which
contextual compatibility can be examined through phase alignment and semantic continuity through
the preservation of task-relevant modal relations.

\subsection{Related work and contribution boundary}

The framework lies at the intersection of Transformer attention, rotary position encoding,
representation analysis, and mechanistic interpretability. Transformer literature defines
attention as content-dependent query--key compatibility followed by normalized allocation.\cite{vaswani2017}
RoPE makes relative position algebraically available through blockwise rotations of queries and
keys.\cite{su2024} Centered kernel alignment and related representation-analysis methods compare
learned spaces while warning against treating arbitrary coordinates as intrinsically meaningful.\cite{kornblith2019}
Mechanistic interpretability seeks causal or circuit-level accounts of computations implemented
by attention heads, including induction-head behavior.\cite{olsson2022}

Three closer lines of work establish the necessary novelty boundary. Barbero et al.\ analyze how
trained models use RoPE frequencies, associating high-frequency components with robust positional
patterns, finding preferential use of low frequencies, and hypothesizing that those frequencies
carry semantic information.\cite{barbero2025} Gu et al.\ develop a spectral analysis of
content-position coupling through Toeplitz structures derived from attention logits and study the
resulting contraction properties.\cite{gu2026} Liu formulates RoPE directly as phase modulation
over complex oscillator banks and derives bounds involving context length, base frequency, depth,
and numerical precision.\cite{liu2026}

This paper therefore does not claim the first phase interpretation of RoPE, the first spectral
analysis of positional encoding, a new encoding scheme, or an empirically discovered circuit.
Its distinct contribution is to connect four elements not combined in those accounts: an exact
decomposition of rotary attention into magnitude-weighted phase terms; a local bound on
pre-softmax score loss under bounded phase displacement; a basis-disciplined construction for
phase-sensitive continuity across generated-state trajectories; and a formal separation between
representational continuity and execution-boundary admissibility. The last distinction is
categorical: phase structure may diagnose preservation within a trajectory, but it cannot confer
authority on the trajectory's consequence.

This paper develops that treatment without claiming that language models are physical wave
systems. The terms spectral, phase, mode, and coherence refer to mathematical representations of
ordered computational states. They do not imply propagating energy, quantum behavior, or literal
oscillation in physical space.

\begin{quote}
Rotary attention contains an explicit phase geometry, and that geometry provides a
principled foundation for analyzing contextual reinforcement, long-range drift, and the
separation between semantic coherence and institutional admissibility.
\end{quote}

\section{Spectral Structure Belongs to Ordered Context}

A vocabulary index is an arbitrary identifier. It has no intrinsic neighborhood, distance, or
frequency. Spectral analysis therefore should not be imposed across token IDs. The appropriate
domain is the ordered sequence processed by the model.

Let a transformer layer $\ell$ produce hidden representations
\begin{equation}
h_0^{(\ell)},h_1^{(\ell)},\ldots,h_{L-1}^{(\ell)}\in\R^d
\end{equation}
for a context of length $L$. Collect them into
\begin{equation}
H^{(\ell)}=
\begin{pmatrix}
(h_0^{(\ell)})^\top\\
(h_1^{(\ell)})^\top\\
\vdots\\
(h_{L-1}^{(\ell)})^\top
\end{pmatrix}
\in\R^{L\times d}.
\end{equation}
The ordering of the rows is meaningful because it follows token position within the active
context. For any representational direction $u\in\R^d$, define the scalar sequence
\begin{equation}
y_m^{(\ell,u)}=\left\langle h_m^{(\ell)},u\right\rangle,
\qquad m=0,\ldots,L-1.
\end{equation}
This ordered sequence admits a discrete Fourier representation:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\widehat{y}_k^{(\ell,u)}
  &=\sum_{m=0}^{L-1}y_m^{(\ell,u)}e^{-2\pi i km/L},\\
y_m^{(\ell,u)}
  &=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{k=0}^{L-1}\widehat{y}_k^{(\ell,u)}e^{2\pi i km/L}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The coefficients $\widehat{y}_k^{(\ell,u)}$ describe how strongly the selected representational
direction varies across positional frequencies. A vector-valued transform may likewise be
defined directly:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\widehat{h}_k^{(\ell)}
  &=\sum_{m=0}^{L-1}h_m^{(\ell)}e^{-2\pi i km/L},\\
h_m^{(\ell)}
  &=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{k=0}^{L-1}\widehat{h}_k^{(\ell)}e^{2\pi i km/L}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

This decomposition does not claim that the model explicitly computes a Fourier transform. It
shows that the ordered hidden-state field can be analyzed through orthogonal positional modes.
Geometry describes each representation at a position; spectral analysis describes how
representations vary across positions. General spectral analysis of this kind belongs to the
broader mathematical tradition of representing signals through scale- or frequency-localized
components.\cite{daubechies1990}

Slowly varying modes may capture broad contextual structure extending across the sequence.
Higher-frequency modes may capture local alternation, abrupt transitions, repetition, or
short-range positional variation. These interpretations are hypotheses rather than automatic
semantic facts and require empirical validation.

The spectral object is therefore not the token as an isolated vocabulary item. It is the ordered
representational trajectory generated across context.

\section{Rotary Position Embedding as Phase Geometry}

The original Transformer architecture replaced recurrence and convolution with attention-based
sequence processing.\cite{vaswani2017} Rotary Position Embedding later introduced an
architecture-specific phase structure by encoding position through rotations in paired coordinate
planes.\cite{su2024}

For an even-dimensional query or key vector, RoPE groups coordinates into two-dimensional pairs.
At position $m$, each pair is rotated by an angle proportional to $m$. For frequency parameter
$\theta_j$, define
\begin{equation}
R_{\theta_j,m}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos(m\theta_j)&-\sin(m\theta_j)\\
\sin(m\theta_j)&\cos(m\theta_j)
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The full rotary operator is block diagonal:
\begin{equation}
R_{\Theta,m}^{d}=
\operatorname{diag}\!\left(
R_{\theta_1,m},R_{\theta_2,m},\ldots,R_{\theta_{d/2},m}
\right).
\end{equation}

Let $q_j,k_j\in\R^2$ denote the $j$-th coordinate pairs of a query and key. Their
position-encoded forms are $R_{\theta_j,m}q_j$ and $R_{\theta_j,n}k_j$. Because rotation
matrices are orthogonal,
\begin{equation}
R_{\theta_j,m}^{\top}R_{\theta_j,n}=R_{\theta_j,n-m}.
\end{equation}
Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\left\langle R_{\theta_j,m}q_j,R_{\theta_j,n}k_j\right\rangle
=\left\langle q_j,R_{\theta_j,n-m}k_j\right\rangle.
\end{equation}

Relative displacement appears directly inside the interaction.

The same result becomes especially transparent in complex notation. Associate each
two-dimensional pair with a complex scalar:
\begin{equation}
q_j=q_{j,1}+iq_{j,2},
\qquad
k_j=k_{j,1}+ik_{j,2}.
\end{equation}
A rotation becomes multiplication by a unit complex phase:
\begin{equation}
q_j^{(m)}=q_je^{im\theta_j},
\qquad
k_j^{(n)}=k_je^{in\theta_j}.
\end{equation}
The real inner product of the rotated pairs is
\begin{equation}
\left\langle R_{\theta_j,m}q_j,R_{\theta_j,n}k_j\right\rangle
=\RePart\!\left(q_j\overline{k_j}e^{i(m-n)\theta_j}\right).
\end{equation}

Writing $q_j=|q_j|e^{i\alpha_j}$ and $k_j=|k_j|e^{i\beta_j}$ gives
\begin{equation}
\left\langle R_{\theta_j,m}q_j,R_{\theta_j,n}k_j\right\rangle
=|q_j||k_j|
\cos\!\left(\alpha_j-\beta_j+(m-n)\theta_j\right).
\end{equation}
Summing across all rotary pairs yields the full query--key score before scaling:
\begin{equation}
\left\langle R_{\Theta,m}^{d}q,R_{\Theta,n}^{d}k\right\rangle
=\sum_{j=1}^{d/2}|q_j||k_j|
\cos\!\left(\alpha_j-\beta_j+(m-n)\theta_j\right).
\end{equation}

This is not metaphorical phase language. The phase is mathematically defined by the angular
coordinate of each two-dimensional RoPE pair. Each pair contributes according to query phase,
key phase, and relative-position phase. RoPE therefore converts relative position into a
distributed phase displacement across multiple angular scales.

The model does not merely attach a position label to a representation. It changes the phase
relation under which queries and keys interact.

\section{Modal Reinforcement and Attenuation}

The scaled attention score between positions $m$ and $n$ in head $h$ is
\begin{equation}
S_{mn}^{(h)}
=
\frac{
\left\langle
R_{\Theta,m}^{d_k}q_m^{(h)},
R_{\Theta,n}^{d_k}k_n^{(h)}
\right\rangle
}{\sqrt{d_k}}.
\end{equation}
Using the complex pair representation,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
S_{mn}^{(h)}
  &=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d_k}}\sum_{j=1}^{d_k/2}
    \rho_{mnj}^{(h)}\cos\delta_{mnj}^{(h)},\\
\rho_{mnj}^{(h)}
  &=\left|q_{m,j}^{(h)}\right|\left|k_{n,j}^{(h)}\right|,\\
\delta_{mnj}^{(h)}
  &=\alpha_{m,j}^{(h)}-\beta_{n,j}^{(h)}+(m-n)\theta_j.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Each rotary pair contributes a magnitude-weighted cosine term. When
$\delta_{mnj}^{(h)}$ lies near zero modulo $2\pi$, that pair contributes positively and near its
maximum magnitude. When the displacement approaches $\pi/2$, the contribution becomes small.
Near $\pi$, the pair contributes negatively.

The resulting score is assembled through algebraic reinforcement and attenuation across multiple
phase-bearing coordinate pairs. This does not mean that the transformer contains physical waves.
It means that its positional attention score is a sum of phase-sensitive modal contributions.

For causal self-attention, the mask must be represented explicitly:
\begin{equation}
M_{mn}=
\begin{cases}
0,&n\le m,\\
-\infty,&n>m.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Softmax then converts the masked scores into competitive weights:
\begin{equation}
A_{mn}^{(h)}
=
\frac{\exp\!\left(S_{mn}^{(h)}+M_{mn}\right)}
{\displaystyle\sum_{\ell=0}^{L-1}
\exp\!\left(S_{m\ell}^{(h)}+M_{m\ell}\right)}.
\end{equation}

The process has two distinct stages: phase-structured compatibility followed by competitive
allocation. Phase alignment influences the score, while masked softmax determines how that score
survives competition against permitted alternative keys.

Attention is therefore not a spectral filter in the classical linear time-invariant sense. Its
weights depend on content, layer, head, and current context. A more precise description is that
RoPE attention is an adaptive correlation system whose positional component is explicitly phase
structured.

\section{A RoPE Score-Stability Lemma}

The phase formulation yields a direct stability result for rotary query--key compatibility. Let
\begin{equation}
S=\sum_{j=1}^{J}\rho_j\cos\delta_j,
\qquad
\rho_j\ge 0,
\end{equation}
and define the fully aligned reference score
\begin{equation}
S_{\max}=\sum_{j=1}^{J}\rho_j.
\end{equation}

\begin{lemma}[Bounded phase displacement bounds score loss]
If $|\delta_j|\le\varepsilon$ for every $j$, then
\begin{equation}
S\ge S_{\max}-\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{J}\rho_j
=\left(1-\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}\right)S_{\max}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
For every real $x$,
\begin{equation}
\cos x\ge 1-\frac{x^2}{2}.
\end{equation}
Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\rho_j\cos\delta_j
\ge
\rho_j\left(1-\frac{\delta_j^2}{2}\right).
\end{equation}
Since $|\delta_j|\le\varepsilon$,
\begin{equation}
\rho_j\cos\delta_j
\ge
\rho_j\left(1-\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}\right).
\end{equation}
Summing over all pairs gives
\begin{equation}
S\ge
\left(1-\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}\right)
\sum_{j=1}^{J}\rho_j
=
\left(1-\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}\right)S_{\max}.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}

The lemma establishes a local property of the pre-softmax rotary score. Uniformly bounded phase
displacement prevents that score from falling arbitrarily far below its fully aligned value.

It does not provide an equivalent guarantee for the final attention probability. Softmax depends
on the entire row of competing scores, and a highly coherent query--key pair can still receive low
normalized attention if another permitted key receives a larger score.

\section{Hidden-State Trajectories and Valid Phase Coordinates}

The phase variables used in RoPE arise naturally from two-dimensional coordinate pairs. A similar
construction can be applied to hidden-state trajectories, but only after a valid paired basis has
been defined.

Let $h_t\in\R^d$ denote a selected hidden representation associated with decoding step $t$. This
may be the final-layer state at the current position, a pooled prefix representation, or another
explicitly chosen state observable.

Choose orthonormal paired directions $(u_k,v_k)$, $k=1,\ldots,K$, satisfying
\begin{equation}
\langle u_k,u_\ell\rangle=\delta_{k\ell},
\qquad
\langle v_k,v_\ell\rangle=\delta_{k\ell},
\qquad
\langle u_k,v_\ell\rangle=0.
\end{equation}
Define a complex modal coordinate
\begin{equation}
z_{k,t}=\langle h_t,u_k\rangle+i\langle h_t,v_k\rangle.
\end{equation}
Then $z_{k,t}=A_{k,t}e^{i\phi_{k,t}}$, where
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
A_{k,t}
  &=\sqrt{\langle h_t,u_k\rangle^2+\langle h_t,v_k\rangle^2},\\
\phi_{k,t}
  &=\operatorname{atan2}\!\left(\langle h_t,v_k\rangle,
  \langle h_t,u_k\rangle\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Phase is now well defined. The paired directions may be selected through Fourier sine--cosine
modes, paired principal or singular directions, eigenmodes of a learned linearized operator, or
task-trained orthogonal probes. No single basis is universally privileged. Its usefulness depends
on whether it captures task-relevant structure and supports reproducible prediction.

\subsection{Basis dependence and identifiability}

Modal phase is basis-dependent. Rotating the pair $(u_k,v_k)$ within its own two-dimensional
subspace shifts the reported phase while leaving the subspace itself unchanged. Comparisons are
therefore meaningful only when the basis-construction procedure, orientation convention, and sign
convention are fixed in advance and applied reproducibly across samples, models, and time steps.

A phase relation between two decoding states $t$ and $r$ may then be written as
\begin{equation}
\Delta\phi_k(t,r)=\Arg\!\left(z_{k,t}\overline{z_{k,r}}\right).
\end{equation}
A normalized weighted coherence functional is
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(t,r)=
\frac{
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{K}
w_kA_{k,t}A_{k,r}\cos\Delta\phi_k(t,r)
}{
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{K}
w_kA_{k,t}A_{k,r}
},
\end{equation}
provided the denominator is nonzero. This measure satisfies
\begin{equation}
-1\le\Gamma(t,r)\le 1.
\end{equation}
A value near $1$ indicates strong phase alignment across the selected modal pairs. A value near
$0$ indicates weak aggregate alignment, while negative values indicate opposition in the chosen
modal frame.

The functional is not automatically a measure of semantic fidelity. It becomes one only if the
selected modal pairs are empirically shown to encode the relevant objective, factual frame,
constraint set, or task structure.

\section{Autoregressive Inference as an Execution Trajectory}

A transformer should not be described as a conventional recurrent network. Autoregressive
inference nevertheless produces a sequence of computational states.

Let $x_{\le t}=(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_t)$ be the generated prefix at step $t$. Let $E_t$ denote the
complete execution state required to continue inference. Depending on implementation, it may
include the token prefix, cached keys and values, decoding parameters, active system instructions,
and external context supplied to the model.

The next-token distribution is
\begin{equation}
p_\Theta(x_{t+1}\mid E_t).
\end{equation}
After a token is selected,
\begin{equation}
x_{t+1}\sim p_\Theta(\,\cdot\mid E_t),
\end{equation}
the execution state advances according to
\begin{equation}
E_{t+1}=T_\Theta(E_t,x_{t+1}).
\end{equation}
This is an execution-state transition, not a claim that the transformer possesses a single
recurrent hidden vector. A selected observable may be extracted from each execution state:
\begin{equation}
h_t=O(E_t).
\end{equation}
The sequence $h_0,h_1,\ldots,h_T$ then forms an analyzable trajectory through representation
space. It is driven and nonlinear, affected by attention, residual pathways, normalization,
nonlinear activation, token selection, context growth, and any external retrieval or tool results
entering the execution state.

A spectral account does not turn this process into a conservative oscillator. It provides
coordinates for studying how selected relational structures change as execution proceeds.

\section{Semantic Continuity and Modal Drift}

A generated continuation can remain locally fluent while progressively departing from its
initiating objective. This occurs because next-token plausibility is evaluated conditionally at
each step. Local compatibility does not guarantee preservation of a global invariant.

Let $h_0$ represent an anchor state associated with the initial directive, established facts, or
governing objective. Let $h_t$ be the selected observable at a later execution step.

A geometric continuity measure in a task-relevant subspace $P$ is
\begin{equation}
\kappa_t=
\frac{\langle Ph_t,Ph_0\rangle}
{\lVert Ph_t\rVert\,\lVert Ph_0\rVert}.
\end{equation}
Using the paired modal construction, a phase-sensitive alternative is
\begin{equation}
H_t=\Gamma(t,0).
\end{equation}
The two quantities answer different questions. $\kappa_t$ measures aggregate directional
similarity after projection, while $H_t$ resolves that relation through amplitude-weighted phase
alignment across chosen modal pairs.

The modal view supports a specific hypothesis:
\begin{quote}
A trajectory may preserve high local transition compatibility while accumulating global
modal divergence from its anchor.
\end{quote}

This offers a disciplined interpretation of semantic drift. Topic drift may appear as progressive
phase displacement in modes associated with the initiating subject. Contradiction may appear as
unstable alternation or competition between modal configurations associated with incompatible
commitments. Repetition may appear as excessive concentration around a narrow and persistent
modal pattern. Unsupported factual elaboration may preserve linguistic and thematic coherence
while diverging from modes associated with evidence-grounded constraints.

These are empirical hypotheses. Their validity depends on whether the chosen basis reliably
separates these failure classes from ordinary stylistic and semantic variation. The scientific
value of the framework therefore rests on comparative prediction, not descriptive elegance.

\section{Coherence Is Not Admissibility}

Internal coherence and institutional permission are different properties. A response may be
linguistically fluent, contextually consistent, and phase-stable within the model's representational
trajectory while remaining unauthorized, unsupported, or operationally impermissible.

Let $s_t$ denote the governed interaction state and $a_t$ the model's candidate output or action.
Let the active governance contract be the conjunction
\begin{equation}
C(s_t,a_t)=\bigwedge_{r=1}^{N}p_r(s_t,a_t),
\end{equation}
where each predicate may encode an objective boundary, scope restriction, authority limit,
resolved fact, commitment, continuity requirement, or forbidden transition.

The contract's characteristic decision is
\begin{equation}
\chi_C(s_t,a_t)=
\begin{cases}
1,&C(s_t,a_t)=\mathrm{true},\\
0,&C(s_t,a_t)=\mathrm{false}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The executed candidate is then
\begin{equation}
a_t^{\mathrm{exec}}=
\begin{cases}
a_t,&\chi_C(s_t,a_t)=1,\\
\varnothing,&\chi_C(s_t,a_t)=0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Where the implemented governance architecture permits correction, a separate correction operator
may be invoked:
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{a}_t=R(s_t,a_t).
\end{equation}
The corrected candidate must then be evaluated independently:
\begin{equation}
a_t^{\mathrm{exec}}=
\begin{cases}
\widetilde{a}_t,&\chi_C(s_t,\widetilde{a}_t)=1,\\
\varnothing,&\chi_C(s_t,\widetilde{a}_t)=0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}

This formulation does not assume that the system computes the nearest admissible output or
projects the candidate onto an admissible manifold. It represents only the operations actually
required: evaluation, acceptance, correction where supported, and blocking where admissibility is
not established.

The Continuity Governance Mesh (CGM), developed by ENTRUST AI, is a production SaaS
architecture that externalizes governed session state from the probabilistic model. It binds each
session to a configurable contract comprising its objective, boundary, scope, tone, authority
limits, forbidden transitions, commitments, and resolved facts; evaluates responses for contract
drift, integrity failures, and longitudinal patterns; and, according to the active governance
posture, records, identifies, corrects, holds, or submits output to The Pilcrow\texttrademark{} for
downstream release adjudication. CGM therefore provides an operational realization of the
separation formalized here: continuity may inform governance, but it cannot authorize execution.
Its governance history is preserved in an ordered audit ledger, and a completed session may be
closed with a tamper-evident HMAC-SHA256 signature over the contract and full ledger, without
modifying the model's learned parameters or rotary dynamics.

\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\text{semantic coherence}&\not\Rightarrow\text{institutional admissibility},\\
\text{institutional admissibility}&\not\Rightarrow\text{maximal semantic similarity}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

A governance system may permit wide variation in wording, reasoning path, and conceptual
development while refusing one unauthorized consequence. The model's internal trajectory may
remain coherent; the institution's execution boundary may still require refusal.

\section{Boundary Stabilization Without Internal Suppression}

The distinction between coherence and admissibility prevents a common architectural error.
Governance does not require eliminating variation from the model's internal process. It requires
controlling the transition at which variation becomes accepted consequence.

Let $\mathcal{T}(s_t)$ be the set of candidate transitions the model can generate from state $s_t$,
and let
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}(s_t)\subseteq\mathcal{T}(s_t)
\end{equation}
be the subset permitted by the governance contract.

The model may explore broadly within $\mathcal{T}(s_t)$, while execution is restricted to
$\mathcal{A}(s_t)$. The governed system therefore separates generative diversity from
institutional authority:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\text{candidate diversity within }\mathcal{T}(s_t),\\
&\text{executed consequence within }\mathcal{A}(s_t).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

This architecture does not demand that the model's latent process be deterministic. It demands
that the crossing into accepted action be governed.

The phase analogy is useful only at this boundary level. An external governance system may
compare an evolving interaction against a stable reference and intervene when the trajectory
departs from authorized conditions. It does not literally phase-lock the model's internal
coordinates.

\begin{quote}
Spectral analysis may describe continuity within the model's trajectory; governance
determines whether that trajectory may acquire institutional consequence.
\end{quote}

\section{Experimental Program}

\subsection{Rotary-phase alignment and attention score}

For controlled query--key pairs, bounded aggregate phase displacement should predict bounded
degradation in the pre-softmax RoPE score, consistent with the score-stability lemma. The
relevant quantities are
\begin{equation}
\rho_{mnj}=|q_{m,j}||k_{n,j}|,
\qquad
\delta_{mnj}=\alpha_{m,j}-\beta_{n,j}+(m-n)\theta_j.
\end{equation}
Measured scores can be compared directly with
\begin{equation}
\sum_j\rho_{mnj}\cos\delta_{mnj}.
\end{equation}

\subsection{Long-range continuity}

Task-relevant paired modal coordinates can be learned or selected from hidden-state trajectories.
Their coherence measure $H_t=\Gamma(t,0)$ can then be tested as a predictor of objective drift,
contradiction, repetition, or unsupported elaboration.

\subsection{Comparison with geometric baselines}

Any proposed phase-coherence measure must be tested against established alternatives, including
cosine similarity, subspace distance, centered kernel alignment, linear-probe performance, and
activation-space change metrics. Spectral analysis earns explanatory standing only if it improves
prediction, separates failure classes, or reveals structure unavailable to simpler baselines.

\subsection{Positional-encoding comparison}

Models using RoPE should exhibit explicit relative-phase structure in query--key interactions.
Comparable models using additive positional encoding should not possess the same direct rotational
decomposition, although their hidden trajectories may still admit general spectral analysis across
ordered positions.

\subsection{Governance independence}

A governed execution layer should reduce inadmissible terminal transitions without requiring
uniform suppression of internal trajectory diversity. This can be tested by comparing trajectory
diversity, semantic continuity, and boundary violations under governed and ungoverned conditions.
A successful result would show that authority control and representational diversity are
independent dimensions.

\section{Limits of the Framework}

The framework does not establish that all semantic structure is harmonic, that Fourier modes are
the optimal basis for hidden-state interpretation, or that phase coherence is a universal predictor
of hallucination. It does not equate RoPE with classical cross-power spectral density, wave
propagation, or quantum evolution, and it does not claim that attention is a linear time-invariant
filter.

Its defensible claims are more precise:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*,itemsep=0.2em]
\item Ordered hidden-state sequences admit spectral decomposition.
\item RoPE implements position through explicit rotations in paired coordinate planes.
\item Rotary query--key scores decompose into magnitude-weighted cosine terms whose phases
depend on content and relative position.
\item Phase alignment places mathematical bounds on the corresponding pre-softmax score.
\item Properly constructed paired modal coordinates permit phase-sensitive analysis of
hidden-state trajectories.
\item Semantic continuity and institutional admissibility remain distinct, regardless of how
coherent the model's internal trajectory appears.
\end{enumerate}

These claims establish a research framework rather than a completed empirical theory.

\section{Future Research}

The framework becomes scientifically consequential only if its phase variables are identifiable,
its predictions survive comparison with simpler geometric measures, and its governance claims
remain independent of representational coherence. The next research program should therefore
proceed through explicit tests rather than broader analogy.

\subsection{Basis identifiability and invariant phase structure}

Hidden-state phase is meaningful only relative to a reproducible paired basis. Future work should
compare Fourier pairs, paired principal or singular directions, dynamic modes, and task-trained
orthogonal probes under a common evaluation protocol. Each construction should be fitted on a
training split, fixed before evaluation, and aligned across runs by a declared orientation
convention. The analysis should report both coordinate-level phase and subspace-level invariants,
separating effects that survive within-pair rotation from effects created by an arbitrary basis
choice. A basis earns explanatory standing only if its phase variables predict held-out behavior
beyond cosine similarity, subspace angle, and centered kernel alignment.

\subsection{From pairwise score bounds to attention-row guarantees}

Lemma 1 controls one pre-softmax query and key score while holding pair magnitudes fixed. A
stronger theory should incorporate the complete row of competing logits, the causal mask,
perturbations in magnitude, and the margin between the selected key and its nearest competitor.
This would permit lower bounds on normalized attention probability rather than compatibility
alone. The subsequent problem is compositional: determine when local phase stability survives
head aggregation, residual addition, normalization, and multilayer propagation. Such results
would identify the precise conditions under which a local rotary guarantee has, or lacks,
downstream behavioral force.

\subsection{Causal tests of continuity}

Correlation between modal coherence and successful task completion would not establish mechanism.
Controlled interventions should rotate or attenuate selected modal coordinates while preserving
relevant norms and non-target subspaces, then measure the effect on objective retention,
contradiction, unsupported elaboration, repetition, and final-answer accuracy. These interventions
should be compared with matched geometric perturbations and random subspace controls. The
decisive question is whether phase-targeted interventions produce predictable, mode-specific
changes that simpler activation-distance measures do not explain.

\subsection{Architecture and context-length generalization}

The rotary decomposition predicts explicit relative-phase structure in RoPE-based attention, but
the broader hidden-trajectory analysis may extend to models using additive, bias-based, or learned
positional schemes. Matched-model studies should distinguish what is specific to rotary
coordinates from what follows merely from ordered context. Within RoPE systems, experiments
should vary base frequencies, scaling rules, sequence length, and displacement range to determine
where local phase alignment ceases to predict score stability. This would connect the theory to
long-context behavior without presuming that extrapolation failures share a single spectral cause.

\subsection{Formal separation of continuity and admissibility}

Execution-boundary governance should be tested as an external predicate over candidate
transitions, not as a semantic property inferred from hidden-state coherence. Experiments should
compare governed and ungoverned trajectories while measuring boundary violations, false
acceptance, false rejection, task completion, and internal trajectory diversity. The central
hypothesis is that inadmissible transitions can be reduced without collapsing representational
variety or requiring a uniform coherence threshold. Under this design, coherence remains a
diagnostic variable; it never becomes evidence of authority.

\subsection{Falsification criteria}

The framework should be rejected or narrowed if reproducible paired bases cannot be identified,
if phase measures fail to outperform geometric baselines on held-out tasks, if targeted phase
interventions lack specific causal effects, or if the proposed governance separation yields no
measurable reduction in inadmissible transitions independent of generic output suppression.
These failure conditions are not peripheral. They define the boundary between a useful spectral
theory and an attractive redescription of familiar geometry.

\section{Conclusion}

Transformer language models are geometric computational systems, but their geometry contains
ordered and rotational structure that admits a spectral description.

Across context positions, hidden representations form sequences that can be decomposed into
positional modes. Within RoPE, paired query and key coordinates possess explicit complex phases,
and relative position enters their interaction as angular displacement. The resulting attention
score is assembled from magnitude-weighted phase correlations before masked softmax converts
those correlations into competitive influence.

This structure supports a disciplined account of modal reinforcement, attenuation, and
phase-sensitive continuity. It also clarifies the limits of coherence.

A model may maintain strong internal alignment while drifting from an initiating objective. It
may preserve semantic structure while losing evidential grounding. It may produce a coherent
continuation that exceeds delegated authority. The passage from probability to consequence
therefore cannot be governed by coherence alone.

Spectral analysis may reveal whether a trajectory preserves relational structure. Governance
determines whether that trajectory remains admissible.

\begin{quote}
\centering
phase alignment preserves compatibility;\\
semantic continuity preserves relation;\\
governance preserves authority.

\medskip
A trustworthy architecture must understand all three---and must never confuse one for another.
\end{quote}

\section*{Acknowledgements}

This work was developed independently at ENTRUST AI. The author has no additional
acknowledgements to declare.

\section*{Reproducibility Note}

No experimental datasets were used. No human participants, proprietary model evaluations, or
empirical performance results are reported. The mathematical assumptions and derivations required
to inspect the stated claims are contained in the manuscript. The experiments in Section 11 and
the research program in Section 13 are prospective and should not be read as completed validation.

\section*{Conflict of Interest Statement}

The author is the founder and sole architect of ENTRUST AI, which develops AI governance systems
related to execution-boundary concepts discussed in this paper. This affiliation constitutes a
potential commercial interest.

\begin{thebibliography}{99}

\bibitem{vaswani2017}
A. Vaswani et al.,
``Attention Is All You Need,''
in \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30},
2017, pp. 5998--6008.
\doi{10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762} (arXiv version).

\bibitem{su2024}
J. Su, M. Ahmed, Y. Lu, S. Pan, B. Wen, and Y. Liu,
``RoFormer: Enhanced Transformer with Rotary Position Embedding,''
\emph{Neurocomputing}, vol. 568, art. 127063, 2024.
\doi{10.1016/j.neucom.2023.127063}.

\bibitem{daubechies1990}
I. Daubechies,
``The Wavelet Transform, Time-Frequency Localization and Signal Analysis,''
\emph{IEEE Transactions on Information Theory}, vol. 36, no. 5,
pp. 961--1005, 1990.
\doi{10.1109/18.57199}.

\bibitem{kornblith2019}
S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi, H. Lee, and G. Hinton,
``Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisited,''
in \emph{Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning},
PMLR 97, 2019, pp. 3519--3529.
\doi{10.48550/arXiv.1905.00414} (arXiv version).

\bibitem{olsson2022}
C. Olsson et al.,
``In-Context Learning and Induction Heads,''
arXiv:2209.11895, 2022.
\doi{10.48550/arXiv.2209.11895}.

\bibitem{barbero2025}
F. Barbero, A. Vitvitskyi, C. Perivolaropoulos, R. Pascanu, and P. Veli\v{c}kovi\'c,
``Round and Round We Go! What Makes Rotary Positional Encodings Useful?''
in \emph{Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Learning
Representations}, 2025.
\doi{10.48550/arXiv.2410.06205} (arXiv version).

\bibitem{gu2026}
Z. Gu, R. Chen, H. Zhang, H. Zhang, and Y. Hu,
``Deconstructing Positional Information: From Attention Logits to Training Biases,''
arXiv:2505.13027, rev. 2026.
\doi{10.48550/arXiv.2505.13027}.

\bibitem{liu2026}
F. Liu,
``Rotary Positional Embeddings as Phase Modulation: Theoretical Bounds on the RoPE
Base for Long-Context Transformers,''
arXiv:2602.10959, 2026.
\doi{10.48550/arXiv.2602.10959}.

\end{thebibliography}

\noindent\textbf{Status note.}
This manuscript presents a theoretical framework and a proposed experimental program.
Empirical validation remains necessary before the proposed continuity measures can be treated as
demonstrated predictors of model behavior.

\end{document}