For anthropic interpretability infrastructure and model engineering teams
Interpretability pipeline stalled: activation shuffle or model worker?
Compare the stage that stopped producing artifacts with worker and memory evidence. Distinguish data preparation from sparse-autoencoder execution.
Free 30-day Team evaluation. No card or automatic subscription. Work email verification required.
Replay a resolved Anthropic interpretability workflow incident
Upload your log file. Review the selected evidence and masking, then run diagnosis. Keep the original log for any follow-up questions.
Before uploading, review cloud data handling and local options.
Upload your log file. Large files are processed in your browser. Only selected evidence is submitted when you run diagnosis.
Try Denpex for 30 days. FREE.
No credit card. No automatic subscription. See whether Denpex helps with an incident you already understand.
Start your free 30-day Team evaluation
Up to 50 diagnoses a day for 30 days. Verify your work email to activate an eligible company evaluation, then replay a resolved incident and compare the evidence and next steps with your team's confirmed cause.
What a useful evaluation should establish
Compare one incident your team has already resolved with the first failure, quoted evidence and remaining questions. Begin with this question: Which pipeline stage stopped producing output? Only assign a process, device or recovery state when the submitted evidence establishes it.
Which pipeline stage stopped producing output?
Evidence to compare: Shuffle-pass identity, shard completion and the first worker exception.
A downstream consumer can wait because an upstream partition is missing. Preserve stage-level progress before assigning the problem to GPU execution.
Was the limit in host memory, device memory or storage?
Evidence to compare: Actual allocation or kill evidence with the affected process and input stage.
Activation pipelines span multiple resource boundaries. A memory label does not establish which resource failed or support a GPU reset.
Were cached activation artifacts complete for this pass?
Evidence to compare: Artifact inventory, writer completion and the expected shard mapping.
A path does not prove a completed dataset. Compare the producer contract before rerunning expensive consumers or attributing missing shards to model behavior.
Use Denpex alongside your existing telemetry tools to investigate submitted incident evidence. With monitoring configured on a supported plan, detected failures can trigger alerts and an automatic diagnosis from the captured evidence.
Inside Denpex
See the evidence, not just the claim
Follow the causal chain, inspect the quoted evidence and prepare the next handoff. These actual product captures use founder-account examples and the VS Code extension, with the source identified under each image. Open a capture to inspect it at full size.
Follow the failure through the cascade
Prepare the hardware escalation
Ask for the evidence that is missing
Keep the investigation in the editor
