Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 26, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Reasoning-tuned and reward-trained models are often assumed to verify more reliably because they reason longer or receive correctness signals. We test this in evidence-sufficiency judgment: deciding whether available information actually supports a causal claim, a domain with no decidable correctness reward. Using a pre-registered, same-base, controlled knock-in design, we compare a boundary-keeping recipe (SFT then GRPO) with its own baseline, a scrambled-pairing placebo, and a general-purpose reasoning model under an action-pressure protocol with no evaluation invitation. All load-bearing outcomes are rated by two separate model-rating sessions masked to arm labels; automatic judges only trigger. The trained arm raises spontaneous correct refusal from 25% to 100% (40 per arm; Wilson 95% CI lower bound 91.2%, non-overlapping with the baseline interval [14.2%, 40.2%]), while the scrambled placebo collapses (5% spontaneous / 7.5% invited correct; 91.1% false refusal). The effect is boundary-specific rather than blanket refusal: automatic false refusal on 281 well-formed claims is 1.1% (Wilson upper bound 3.09%), and a targeted 18-item arm-(c) recheck (3 flagged plus 15 accepted) yields 0/18 and 1/18 false refusals in two sessions. The dissociation is the main result: final boundary-keeping is trainable without an inference-time verifier, while observed active numeric/calculation checking in the H3 assay remains near zero; SFT saturation makes the GRPO increment not separately identifiable. A pre-registered mechanism adjudication favors reward internalization of final-action status (H2, best-supported, not proven). The scope is a controlled 14B same-family study: we do not claim proof, cross-family generality, or independent human-expert validation; the rating sessions are model sessions, not human reviewers.