As showcased in Table 6, 7, 8, we present case studies focused on the chat vector. Notably, the model configurations llama2 \(\rightarrow\) CP \(+\) chat vector and llama2 \(\rightarrow\) CP \(\rightarrow\) FT \(+\) chat vector both successfully decline to respond to the prompt and instead offer a safe reply to the user. In contrast, the configuration llama2 \(\rightarrow\) CP \(\rightarrow\) FT suggests illegal methods, demonstrating a deficiency in its safety capabilities. Similarly, the configuration llama2- chat \(\rightarrow\) CP \(\rightarrow\) FT also recommends illicit methods, suggesting a loss of RLHF capability due to the continual-pretraining and fine-tuning processes.