Humans often rely on subjective natural language to direct language models (LLMs); for example, users might instruct the LLM to write an *enthusiastic* blogpost, while developers might train models to be *helpful* and *harmless* using LLM-based edits. The LLM’s *operational semantics* of such subjective phrases---how it adjusts its behavior when each phrase is included in the prompt---thus dictates how aligned it is with human intent. In this work, we uncover instances of *misalignment* between LLMs' actual operational semantics and what humans expect. Our method, TED (thesaurus error detector), first constructs a thesaurus that captures whether two phrases have similar operational semantics according to the LLM. It then elicits failures by unearthing disagreements between this thesaurus and a human-constructed reference. TED routinely produces surprising instances of misalignment; for example, Mistral 7B Instruct produces more *harassing* outputs when it edits text to be *witty*, and Llama 3 8B Instruct produces *dishonest* articles when instructed to make the articles *enthusiastic*. Our results demonstrate that humans can uncover unexpected LLM behavior by scrutinizing relationships between abstract concepts, without supervising outputs directly.

Recent methods in language model interpretability employ techniques such as sparse autoencoders to decompose residual stream contributions into linear, semantically-meaningful features. Our work demonstrates that an underlying assumption of these methods—that residual stream contributions build additively upon each other—is insufficient to fully explain model behavior. Specifically, we identify the Transformer Layer Correction Mechanism (TLCM), wherein adjacent transformer layers systematically counteract each other's contributions to the residual stream. TLCM appears in 5 out of 7 major open-source model families and activates across nearly all tokens in diverse texts. To understand TLCM, we show that it emerges during pretraining, operates most strongly on punctuation and numbers, and adaptively calibrates its correction strength based on the preceding layer's output. We further show that TLCM actively corrects a small subspace and promotes other subspaces, different from standard model behavior. We advance the ``propose-and-reject'' hypothesis: layers may propose multiple candidate features, while subsequent layers selectively filter out inappropriate ones. Finally, we discuss how our findings help explain three persistent challenges in feature-based interpretability: why extracted features descriptions often suffer from low specificity; why feature-based interventions for model steering fail at low magnitude; why recent work finds cross-layer transcoders outperform SAEs.