Where Can a Decision Model Diagnose HVAC Faults? Reasoning Demand, Physical Representation, and Robustness Under Shift

Integrating multi-level information, from physical models through data-driven diagnostics to natural language reasoning, into verifiable decision chains is a growing need in intelligent manufacturing. In bearing fault diagnosis, taken here as a representative testbed, the standard output is a class label and a confidence score derived from the classifier's own distribution, offering limited means of comparison against independent physical knowledge. Meanwhile, language models increasingly used for maintenance communication may introduce unsupported content. This work addresses both limitations from the output side. The proposed Diagnostic Evidence Network (DENet) is an encoder-agnostic multi-task framework that extends the output to a structured evidence record: the classification, a predicted characteristic frequency comparable against the theoretical value determined by bearing geometry and shaft speed, and a temporal localization of transient impulses inspectable on the raw waveform. Across four encoders and three public datasets, this evidence incurs no statistically significant accuracy cost, with a frequency error of about 6 Hz on 1,024-point segments. The deviation between predicted and theoretical frequency constitutes a label-free, inference-time validation signal. It detects misclassifications with AUROC of 0.970 and 0.871, and retains separation within the high-confidence subset. Finally, a QLoRA-adapted language model renders DENet's evidence into traceable maintenance reports without contributing diagnostic decisions, reducing unsupported-claim rates from 10-12% to 2% with no fabricated quantities observed.

Language models increasingly serve as advisory systems in maintenance operations. To prevent hallucination, recent systems ground these models in procedural documentation to constrain them to approved steps. In practice, however, operator queries frequently stray from this path, requiring models to recognise out-of-scope inputs mid-conversation, a dynamic that current benchmarks rarely prioritise. We introduce DiagFlowBench, a dataset of 50 industrial diagnostic flowcharts from a consumer manufacturer converted into 1,676 multi-turn conversations that contrast compliant with out-of-scope utterances. Evaluating a panel of ten commercial and open-weight models reveals high variability in abstention rates, with models commonly selecting a real but contextually inadequate step rather than fabricating facts. The inherent plausibility and authority of this mapped but wrong advice exposes a challenging vulnerability for grounding systems.

Large language models are increasingly used as integration layers above specialized tools, but a stronger component does not necessarily produce a stronger combined system. Across five diagnostic datasets (bearing vibration, process monitoring, semiconductor equipment), we study whether an LLM can reliably use external diagnostic information; paired repeat calls separate advice effects from output instability. In all five, conflicting external information overturned initially correct LLM judgments. Among the four datasets with direct integration comparisons, none showed a consistent advantage for implicit LLM integration over the stronger standalone source. On a Tennessee Eastman confirmation set whose protocol was fixed before evaluation, unaided accuracy was 64.67%, implicit LLM-specialist integration 77.43%, and the specialist alone 83.33%. Specialist information improved the LLM by 12.8 points (95% interval 9.7 to 15.9), yet the integrated output stayed 5.9 points below the specialist (95% interval -12.0 to -0.7). A two-source selector oracle reached 92.76%, indicating complementarity that the integrated output did not fully realize. The integrated output missed 140 of 295 specialist corrections (47.5%) but lost 15 of 99 initially correct LLM judgments (15.2%). The deficit remained under prompt and specialist sensitivity analyses. Among CWRU cases solved under both evidence presentations, task-aligned physical evidence yielded lower estimates of susceptibility to incorrect advice in six of seven models (five intervals excluding zero); higher reasoning effort gave no reliable reduction in five models, and a separate four-model TEP analysis gave no clear evidence that it resolves the integration problem. Source quality and integration quality should be evaluated separately: an integration layer should be compared with its stronger standalone component, not only with the unaided LLM.