Detection Without Correction: A Two-Parameter Decomposition of Multi-Stage LLM Pipelines

Recent work shows that LLM agents struggle to correct errors in their own reasoning traces yet show markedly higher correction rates when identical claims appear under external sources. We ask whether this asymmetry reflects a capability deficit or a role-label artifact: does an agent's willingness to correct a wrong claim depend causally on the chat-template role that carries it, rather than on the claim's content? Our setup keeps the erroneous claim byte-identical across all conditions (SHA-256 verified) and varies only its wrapping role: the agent's own \role{<thought>}, a \role{user} message, a \role{tool} response, or a \role{system <memory>} block. Across 13 model-domain cells covering seven model families and three domains ($n{=}30$ paired tasks per cell), relabeling the claim from \role{<thought>} to an external role lifts the explicit-correction rate by 23 to 93 percentage points, with 10 of 13 cells reaching $p{<}0.001$. Further experiments confirm that the effect is asymmetric, mechanistically decomposable, and robust across domains. The failure to self-correct is not a cognitive deficit; it is a chat-template artifact. We exploit this artifact by designing a prompt-structure-only intervention that requires no training and no model modification, with its strongest role label being domain-dependent: \role{<memory>} dominates on math, while a plain \role{user} message dominates on logical deduction.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as protocols: structured multi-call procedures that spend additional computation to transform a baseline answer into a final one. These protocols are evaluated only by end-to-end accuracy, giving limited insight into when they help, when they hurt, and whether their behavior transfers under distribution shift or composition. We propose a paired-outcome measurement interface for auditing a single protocol step on exact-match tasks. For each instance, the interface records a baseline correctness bit $E_0\in\{0,1\}$ and a post-step correctness bit $E_1\in\{0,1\}$, separating correction ($E_0=0\to E_1=1$) from corruption ($E_0=1\to E_1=0$) through two rates: $c=\Pr(E_1=1\mid E_0=0)$ and $γ=\Pr(E_1=0\mid E_0=1)$. These rates predict accuracy changes and define a reusable empirical interface testable across seeds, mixtures, and pipelines. We identify three failure mechanisms. Under mixture shift, pooled estimates of $(c,γ)$ become biased when calibration and deployment mixtures differ; conditioning on a difficulty proxy restores stability without additional model calls. Under presentation contamination, selection protocols alter the interface through stable presentation artifacts when candidate content is fixed. Under state insufficiency, the correctness bit may not carry enough history for multi-step pipelines to compose predictably; a Markov factorization test identifies when composition is valid and where additional state is needed. When a protocol step passes these diagnostics, it becomes an auditable module: gated by estimated gain, conditioned on a difficulty proxy to correct mixture bias, and composed into multi-step pipelines with predictable accuracy. We demonstrate these ideas on synthetic mathematical tasks and on GSM8K, where the calibrated interface correctly predicts when protocol steps should be activated or suppressed.

Large language models can detect their own errors and sometimes correct them without external feedback, but the underlying mechanisms remain unknown. We investigate this through the lens of second-order models of confidence from decision neuroscience. In a first-order system, confidence derives from the generation signal itself and is therefore maximal for the chosen response, precluding error detection. Second-order models posit a partially independent evaluative signal that can disagree with the committed response, providing the basis for error detection. Kumaran et al. (2026) showed that LLMs cache a confidence representation at a token immediately following the answer (i.e. post-answer newline: PANL) -- that causally drives verbal confidence and dissociates from log-probabilities. Here we test whether this PANL signal extends beyond confidence to support error detection and self-correction. Here we test whether this signal supports error detection and self-correction, deriving predictions from the second-order framework. Using a verify-then-correct paradigm, we show that: (i) verbal confidence predicts error detection far beyond token log-probabilities, ruling out a first-order account; (ii) PANL activations predict error detection beyond verbal confidence itself; and (iii) PANL predicts which errors the model can correct -- where all behavioural signals fail. Causal interventions confirm that PANL signals rescue error detection behavior when answer information is corrupted. All findings replicate across models (Gemma 3 27B and Qwen 2.5 7B) and tasks (TriviaQA and MNLI). These results reveal that LLMs naturally implement a second-order confidence architecture whose internal evaluative signal encodes not only whether an answer is likely wrong but whether the model has the knowledge to fix it.