The Answer Is Not the Argument
TL;DR
Although the errors studied here were ordinary and mostly non-load-bearing rather than adversarial, trusted-answer evaluations may similarly overstate monitoring capability when acceptable outputs conceal unsound reasoning.
Abstract
Chain-of-thought monitoring is proposed for AI oversight, yet evaluations often provide monitors with a trusted reference answer. We ask whether answer access improves verification of the reasoning or mainly supplies information about its conclusion. We collected 237 naturally generated, step-numbered solutions to 79 Humanity's Last Exam physics questions and independently labelled final-answer correctness and the first false step. Eight LLM monitors evaluated the traces with varying access to the reference answer. Certification raised mean balanced accuracy from 0.637 to 0.796, but its effect on error detection depended strongly on the conclusion: recall increased by +0.299 on wrong-answer traces, while there was no evidence of improvement on correct-answer traces containing a reasoning error (-0.083, 95% CI [-0.196, +0.030]). We then held the reasoning trace fixed in a seven-monitor certificate-congruence intervention. Replacing the true certificate with the trace's own incorrect conclusion reduced flagging by 0.659 (95% CI [0.602, 0.711]) and left flagging 0.389 below the answer-blind level. Conversely, a conflicting false certificate increased flagging of clean traces by 0.580, with 82.9% of newly flagged cases assigning the alleged error to an interior reasoning step. Trusted-answer access can therefore make monitoring appear substantially stronger because aggregate performance combines independent reasoning verification with a powerful certificate-conclusion consistency signal.
