Activation steering controls language models by adding vectors or features to hidden states at inference time, but the upstream source of these steering signals is often treated as a secondary detail. We study this source choice as activation source selection: the combination of source context and activation readout policy used to collect the hidden states from which a steering signal is built. Holding the downstream intervention fixed, we show across three instruction-tuned models and four steering task families that changing only the source activations can more than double steering success. We further find that effective steering is not explained simply by whether the desired behavior appears in the source text. Instead, strong signals come from execution-boundary states, where the model is about to produce or continue the target behavior. This phase distinction explains why answer-based sources sometimes work: their useful component aligns with execution-boundary directions rather than target appearance alone. Building on this view, we introduce tail subtraction, which removes shared prompt and continuation semantics from boundary states and yields cleaner, more stable steering signals. Overall, our results suggest that steering depends on representations of what the model is about to do, not merely on what has already appeared.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate exceptional performance on tasks requiring complex linguistic abilities, such as reference disambiguation and metaphor recognition/generation. Although LLMs possess impressive capabilities, their internal mechanisms for processing and representing linguistic knowledge remain largely opaque. Prior research on linguistic mechanisms is limited by coarse granularity, limited analysis scale, and narrow focus. In this study, we propose LinguaLens, a systematic and comprehensive framework for analyzing the linguistic mechanisms of large language models, based on Sparse Auto-Encoders (SAEs). We extract a broad set of Chinese and English linguistic features across four dimensions—morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. By employing counterfactual methods, we construct a large-scale counterfactual dataset of linguistic features for mechanism analysis. Our findings reveal intrinsic representations of linguistic knowledge in LLMs, uncover patterns of cross-layer and cross-lingual distribution, and demonstrate the potential to control model outputs. This work provides a systematic suite of resources and methods for studying linguistic mechanisms, offers strong evidence that LLMs possess genuine linguistic knowledge, and lays the foundation for more interpretable and controllable language modeling in future research.