When a language model answers a yes/no question, that answer changes how it answers a different question about the same entity. We study this \emph{self-commitment} in 22 open-weight models from four families (0.5B--72B parameters), fixing the model's first answer and measuring the shift in its second across 3,600 question pairs about 120 entities. Each answer writes a \emph{commitment direction} into the residual stream. The similarity of two questions' directions predicts their coupling on held-out entities ($ρ= 0.43$--$0.85$), and ablating a single direction shared across topics leaves at most 17\% of the effect in every model. How this direction is read is far less stable: the reading circuit spreads across more attention heads as models grow, instruction tuning makes more questions read it in the opposite sense, and in one model changing only the system prompt reverses the circuit's sign. Ablating the direction while sparing the attention sink removes most of the coupling at under 1.3\% perplexity cost in 18 of 19 instruction-tuned models, though it shifts standalone answers in two. Without the sink spared, the direction's alignment with the leading principal component of ordinary text predicts which models pay a high cost. Written once, the commitment is read differently across scale, training and prompt.

翻译：暂无翻译