Vision-language models (VLMs) are expected to revise their reasoning when visual evidence changes. Failures to do so are often attributed to insufficient visual attention or contextual inertia, leaving unclear what models reuse instead of recomputing from the current image. We show that evidence-bearing reasoning in a prior chain of thought (CoT) can form a textual shortcut that competes behaviorally with visual recomputation. Across 16 VLMs, a matched counterfactual analysis identifies evidence-bearing content as the most robust carrier of prior-CoT influence. Removing this evidence-bearing content shifts answer preference more than removing length-matched non-evidence context or the final-answer span, with prior control weakening progressively as more stale evidence is removed. Reordering this evidence also weakens prior control, showing that its organization modulates shortcut strength. Beyond the immediate answer, the shortcut can retain residual influence after answer correction: weakening current-image support shifts preference back toward the prior answer, while repeated prior answers and reused premises arise mainly when the shortcut remains active. To limit this influence, we introduce Fresh-State Attention Firewall (FSAF), a training-free intervention that isolates fresh computation from the prior CoT. Across five VLMs, FSAF raises visual update rate from 35.28% to 53.61% and reduces prior-answer rate from 39.22% to 3.67%. Reliable VLM self-reflection therefore requires more than looking again: fresh visual recomputation must be protected from stale textual reuse.
Vision-language models often use descriptions of earlier visual states to make decisions about the current scene. When the scene changes, stale language can redirect an otherwise correct visual judgment toward an outdated answer. We study this failure as visual lock-in in a controlled grounding setting where only the verbalized prior varies. Across models, stronger lock-in accompanies smaller changes in the model representation before the final answer. This reversal suggests that lock-in depends not on how far this representation moves, but on how that movement is organized. In models that are harder to correct, prior-induced changes concentrate along a compact set of directions that repeatedly appear across examples. We call these recurrent axes the Prior Directions. They recur on held-out examples, while a descriptive four-model comparison associates greater concentration with stronger lock-in. Controlled interventions show that removing the component aligned with the Prior Directions restores visual grounding, whereas removing an equally large orthogonal component has little effect. Prior control thus arises when prior-induced changes form a coherent and reusable pattern in the representation used to produce the answer. This account explains why the same prior remains revisable in one model yet becomes dominant in another.