Behaviour Is an Incomplete Measure of Reasoning Development: Cross-surface pre-arrival accessibility and the limits of developmental inference in a recurrent-depth reasoner

Abstract

Capability development is routinely inferred from behavioural thresholds, from final checkpoints, or from what a decoder can read out of a hidden state. These quantities need not identify the same event. We study a 30M-parameter recurrent-depth relational reasoner in a closed, oracle-defined world, using dense behavioural trajectories, two training surfaces, preregistered pre-arrival hidden-state probes, prospectively checked evaluability, and explicit untrained and negative controls, holding the training-time and inference-time axes separate throughout. Behaviour first: under one frozen acquisition criterion, three-hop competence cost 70 logical epochs on the symbolic surface and 13,055 on the verbal surface, a 186.5-fold contrast, after which verbal four-hop competence cleared in 8 logical epochs. Across the 13,055-epoch grind, four-hop held-out behaviour never exceeded 3/40 and ended at 0/40. Internal measurement next: on the verbal surface a linear probe recovered future-answer identity before behavioural arrival at 0.056159 against uniform chance 0.025, an untrained control of 0.024758 and a population frequency baseline of 0.048309 (p = 0.012987; 16/40 answer classes contributing). Analogous pre-arrival accessibility survived the surface change, reaching 0.1020 against a zero-step control of 0.0460 (p = 0.000999) at the upstream structural position and 0.0618 at the readout comparator (p = 0.004), with 21/40 classes contributing. Finally, the natural attempt to track that accessibility across training was not cleanly evaluable: probe eligibility is defined by behavioural arrival, so the measured population changes with the measurand. Behavioural competence, internal accessibility, and training-time development are distinct observables, and neither behaviour nor decoder accessibility identifies the computation training acquired; causal intervention is the necessary next step.