同一注意力模式可能对应两种不同计算机制，需区分干预。

When attention concentrates on a single token, a sink, what is the model actually computing? Attention sinks are ubiquitous in softmax transformers, yet this shared visual signature can hide fundamentally different algorithms. We show that visually similar sink patterns can reflect two distinct mechanisms: {i} adaptive nop, where a head suppresses its update by routing to a null token, and {ii} broadcast, where a sink aggregates and redistributes global information. In that case, sinks serve an analogous role: a safe destination when there is nothing useful to compute. Proposed interventions like gating or registers work because they implicitly target one or the other, revealing a duality between method and assumed mechanism: gating implicitly assumes nop; registers implicitly assume broadcast. Each mechanism leaves distinct traces (nop sinks exhibit negligible value norms; broadcast sinks induce low-rank outputs) which we formalize on synthetic tasks and use to derive practical diagnostics. Applied to pretrained vision transformers, these diagnostics reveal that both mechanisms exist at scale: sinks transition from CLS in early layers to patches in deeper layers, and concentrate in specialized heads. Strikingly, register tokens, designed for broadcast, are repurposed to also serve nop, confirming that neither intervention alone suffices. Combining gating with registers yields complementary gains in stability and performance. Overall, we find that the same attention pattern can reflect two very different computations and effective intervention requires first asking what the model is actually computing.