I appreciate this framing a lot. It is actually close to how I think about the result internally. The paper focuses on the geometric behavior of intermediate representations, and classification is the cleanest setting to study that. Generative decoding is a much harder problem, and the limitations section already makes that distinction explicit.

Recasting the work as a “classification-native distilled model” or “discriminative foundation model” is a good way to signal scope without underselling the contribution. You're right that discriminative understanding requires far fewer parameters than generation, and my experiments reinforce that.

This will help me get better. The goal for the next revision is exactly what you describe: make the setup clearer, emphasize the intended domain, and avoid suggestive wording that implies capabilities the method does not claim. Duly noted. Your suggestions on positioning and title direction are genuinely helpful, and I’ll incorporate some of this thinking when I prepare the academic submission.

Thanks for taking the time to articulate it so clearly. I appreciate your time and your critique.