Two Confounds in Cross-Model Value Comparison: Response Determinism and the Access Harness

Cross-model comparisons read divergence in value dispositions as evidence that language models hold individuated values. Under single-draw measurement this conflates two quantities: a difference in central tendency (a genuine value difference) and a difference in response determinism (how sharply a model commits to a forced choice). We introduce a separation protocol -- no-rule value dilemmas with counterbalanced, repeated forced-choice measurement and a determinism index -- and a determinism-corrected decomposition that splits an apparent cross-model distance into a direction-flip component (genuine disagreement) and a same-side-more-extreme component we label determinism. Across nine models, determinism varies substantially (0.66-0.95 among engaging models); whether it is a per-model trait or tracks provider and scale is a question our method makes measurable but our sample leaves open. Correcting for determinism shrinks apparent individuation, while a few cross-family disagreements survive a strict test. We then isolate a second confound: the access harness serving each model. Re-collecting the same models through raw provider APIs, we find the deployment client shifts a model's value profile substantially and client-specifically: one subscription CLI moves a profile by 0.31, flips four of eighteen items, and inflates the flagship's apparent softness (0.34 via CLI vs 0.66 via raw API), whereas another provider's client is clean, confounding provider family with access client. The harness is a value-shaping layer: a base model that refuses one-in-ten forced choices is made compliant by an agent system prompt, established causally in a white-box control. An audit ranking models by single-draw value distance thus ranks a determinism-inflated quantity, confounded further by the client used. We contribute the decomposition and identify the deployment harness as a distinct value confound.