Yeah, I don't see how this text can be trusted at all. Any invertible function from activation space to text will optimize the loss function, including text that says the complete opposite of what the activations mean.
It'd be quite a coincidence if the training runs discovered an invertible weights>text>weights function that produces text that both "is on topic and intelligible as an inner monologue in context" and also is unrelated to meaning encoded in the activations.