Written Once, Read Differently How Language Models Own Answers Steer Their Next Ones

Language-model answers are often treated as a visible record of the internal decision that produced them. We test this assumption in conflicting-context question answering, where two supplied documents support incompatible answers. A model can process the disagreement and still return a one-sided answer, even under prompts that ask it to disclose conflict. In Qwen 0.8B, hidden source commitment is captured by a residual source-choice direction whose sign tracks which document the answer uses. Sparse middle-layer MLP writers feed the same coordinate, and steering the coordinate changes the chosen source. A transfer run on Gemma 3 1B preserves the source-choice readout and sparse-write bridge under LLM-audited labels. Conflict disclosure follows a different pattern, appearing weaker, later-layer, and only partially steerable. These results support a practical monitoring strategy for retrieval systems that detects silent source commitment with residual readouts and pairs conflict-surfacing prompts with disclosure steering when the model has selected a side under disagreement.

Language models often generate reasoning before giving a final answer, but the visible answer does not reveal when the model's answer preference became stable. We study this question through a narrow computable object: finite-answer preference stabilization. For a model state and specified answer verbalizers, we project the model's own continuation probabilities onto a finite answer set; in binary tasks this yields an exact log-odds code, $δ(ξ)=S_θ(\mathrm{yes}\midξ)-S_θ(\mathrm{no}\midξ)$. This target defines parser-based answer onset, retrospective stabilization time, and lead without relying on greedy rollouts or learned probes. In controlled delayed-verdict tasks with Qwen3-4B-Instruct, the contextual finite-answer projection stabilizes before the answer is parseable, with 17--31 token mean lead in the main templates and positive, shorter lead in a parser-clean replication. The signal tracks the model's eventual output rather than truth, is linearly recoverable from compact hidden summaries, is partly separable from cursor progress, and transfers as shared information without a single invariant coordinate. Diagnostics separate the measurement from online stopping, verbalizer-free belief, and causal answer control; exact steering shows local sensitivity of $δ$ but not reliable generation control.

Chat models sometimes commit to an answer and then produce reasoning that justifies it rather than deriving it -- even when the answer contradicts a task premise. We study a minimal probe: "I want to wash my car. The car wash is 100 meters away. Should I walk or drive?" Only drive works (the car must be at the car wash), yet models overwhelmingly recommend walking. (1) Behavioral reproduction: on Qwen3-8B across five system-prompt conditions (210 rollouts), the wrong commitment occurs in 85-100% of sampled rollouts per condition and 100% of greedy rollouts, in both thinking and non-thinking modes; a 4,096-token thinking budget does not repair it. (2) Preliminary activation-level evidence: probing hidden states with a pretrained, training-free activation oracle (no task-specific probe training) at positions before the answer text is emitted, "walk" read-outs exceed a neutral-context baseline (68% vs. 17%; walk-committing rollouts p=.005, drive-committing rollouts p=.005, Fisher exact) -- notably, rollouts that eventually answer drive also read as walk-leaning before commitment (5/6). The oracle's default on unrelated content is "drive" (83%), so the read-outs are not lexical bias; stratifying by literal walk/drive occurrence shows they are not text recovery either (spans containing "drive" still read out walk; in balanced lexical fields, per-rollout walk-majorities beat a per-prompt neutral baseline 15/22 vs. 1/8, p=.01; drive-committing rollouts 6/6, p=.002). Samples are small and the within-rollout positional gradient is not significant (p=.34); we frame these results as preliminary. (3) Methodological: with fixed oracle, activations, and positions, question wording alone moves a positive control from 2/16 (open question) to 11/16 (closed); negative oracle results are uninterpretable without per-wording positive controls.