Is This Evidence Decision-Critical? Learning to Verify Rule-Governed Decisions

Evidence-grounded reasoning requires more than attaching retrieved text to a prediction: a model should make decisions that depend on whether the provided evidence supports the target claim. In practice, this often fails because supervision is weak, evidence is only loosely tied to the claim, and evaluation does not test evidence dependence directly. We introduce case-grounded evidence verification, a general framework in which a model receives a local case context, external evidence, and a structured claim, and must decide whether the evidence supports the claim for that case. Our key contribution is a supervision construction procedure that generates explicit support examples together with semantically controlled non-support examples, including counterfactual wrong-state and topic-related negatives, without manual evidence annotation. We instantiate the framework in radiology and train a standard verifier on the resulting support task. The learned verifier substantially outperforms both case-only and evidence-only baselines, remains strong under correct evidence, and collapses when evidence is removed or swapped, indicating genuine evidence dependence. This behavior transfers across unseen evidence articles and an external case distribution, though performance degrades under evidence-source shift and remains sensitive to backbone choice. Overall, the results suggest that a major bottleneck in evidence grounding is not only model capacity, but the lack of supervision that encodes the causal role of evidence.

We study reasoning in Rule-Governed Decision Tasks (RGDTs), where models apply external rules to case facts and justify decisions, as required in policy, contract, and compliance settings. Beyond the deductive capability emphasized by standard mathematical and logical reasoning tasks, RGDTs require interpreting rules and their applicability, assessing conditions from evidence, combining judgments under rules and exceptions, and providing checkable justifications. These demands motivate a benchmark assessing both decisions and their stated grounds. We introduce RGDT-Bench, providing 202.1K condition-level supervision slots across four task tracks and eight supported task-probe combinations that vary access to supporting information. Label-blind extraction and deterministic checks produce labels for warrant completeness: source-referenced coverage and consistency of stated decision grounds. The benchmark attributes failures to four process layers: rule use, condition, evidence, and aggregation, and checks the final outcome. Among evaluable correct responses, warrant incompleteness averages 40.2% across six evaluated LLMs and supported task-probe combinations. Such warrant incompleteness poses potential safety risks and remains difficult to detect: the best of seventeen existing evaluators reaches only 57.69% (random: 50%) task-averaged area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). To address this difficulty, we train a simple reward model with warrant supervision. It achieves 69.24% task-averaged AUROC among correct answers, exceeding the matched outcome-supervised baseline by 10.37 pp (percentage points) and the best existing evaluator by 11.55 pp. Beyond completeness assessment, the model outperforms both outcome-supervised baselines across nearly all response-selection comparisons, supporting RGDT-Bench's warrant supervision for RGDT reasoning.

What binds large language models on auditable, hypothesis-driven decision tasks, where every candidate can be checked against the evidence? On the public TCMEval-SDT benchmark for Traditional Chinese Medicine syndrome differentiation (200 cases), the binding constraint is output discipline and reasoning structure, not model capability alone: two years of model scaling move zero-shot scores by only -0.03 to +0.08, while output-discipline failures (non-terminating reasoning, format non-compliance, large run-to-run spread) persist even in frontier models. We test this with a model-agnostic agent framework formalizing decision making as a five-stage closed loop, enforced by a candidate x evidence matrix falsification protocol: every candidate is judged against every evidence item, at least half of the candidates must be falsified before a conclusion is licensed, and survivors are emitted in a machine-verifiable single-line format. Across five base models, the effect is sign-conditional on zero-shot output discipline: it rescues models whose discipline fails (DeepSeek-V4-Flash: +0.267/+0.271, entirely termination rescue), reduces a high-variance model's run-to-run standard deviation from 0.218 to 0.007 (Kimi K3), and significantly costs already-disciplined models (-0.087 to -0.120 on budget-matched Qwen3-4B/32B). Ablations attribute the cost to the candidate-bounded format layer and show the effect is independent of injected knowledge content (protocol-knowledge decoupling). The protocol also transfers to misinformation-robust mathematical reasoning, detecting injected false premises at 89.8% recall with a 6.8% false-positive rate (MCC 0.54; a flag-everything baseline scores 0) and restoring accuracy to the no-misinformation ceiling. Where zero-shot output discipline is weak, the reasoning protocol sets the floor; base-model capability always sets the ceiling.