Same Evidence, Different Target: Decoding How Diagnostic Evidence Bears on Causal Questions from Language-Model States

Abstract

The same diagnostic result can support or challenge one causal claim yet fail to address another when the claims concern different populations, outcomes, estimands, pathways, or identifying assumptions. When the evidence and target vary together, a correct answer may reflect favorable or adverse wording, lexical overlap, or a familiar diagnostic pattern rather than matching the evidence to the causal question. We introduce paired prompts that repeat the same diagnostic evidence verbatim while changing the causal target. Each prompt is labeled Favors, Challenges, Unresolved, or Wrong Target according to how the evidence bears on the causal question. A pair is recovered only when both prompts are classified correctly. Using linear readouts trained on a separate development set, we analyze the final-token hidden state from the penultimate transformer block of Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, Qwen3-8B, and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. On the 49-pair primary benchmark spanning nine diagnostic families, balanced accuracy ranges from 0.654 to 0.659 and 18-21 pairs are recovered. Two independent human reviewers assigned the same label to 95 of the 98 prompts (96.9%). Across checkpoints, balanced accuracy and complete-pair recovery exceed permutation nulls that preserve development scenario groups. In Qwen2.5, full-prompt balanced accuracy exceeds both restricted inputs, with paired-bootstrap intervals for both differences above zero. Readouts trained without development examples from the evaluated diagnostic family recover 21 pairs, including at least one in each of the nine families. The hidden-state readout exceeds a linear classifier on answer-option logits and text baselines in balanced accuracy and recovered pairs. These results show that the hidden state contains linearly decodable information about whether diagnostic evidence favors, challenges, or fails to address the causal target.