When Are Sparse Feature Interventions Actually Localized? Matched Evaluation for SAE-Based Safety Control

We evaluate when sparse autoencoder (SAE) features act as localized control handles for safety-relevant behavior. This question is difficult because apparent success can arise from weak interventions, mismatched baselines, model robustness, or degenerate outputs that automated safety judges mark as unsafe without representing meaningful harmful compliance. We introduce a matched coherence-gated evaluation protocol for runtime safety interventions: methods are compared at matched target-effect points, and the primary target metric counts harmful compliance only when an output is both judge-unsafe and coherent. Applying this protocol to three prompt splits on Gemma-2-9B-it with a Gemma Scope layer-20 residual SAE, we find that SAE feature ablation has a narrow useful regime. SAE top800 reaches a low-to-mid target effect with lower total perturbation and competitive utility, but SAE top1600 loses utility relative to a matched dense refusal-direction baseline, and SAE top3200 primarily induces coherence collapse. Human audit confirms that coherence gating removes unsafe-only artifacts, and feature diagnostics show that the useful regime is driven by a stable head of refusal-aligned features whose activation separation decays rapidly with rank. These results argue that SAE-based safety interventions should be evaluated as regime-dependent control mechanisms rather than assumed to be uniformly localized.