Existing LRM-DoS methods rely heavily on model feedback to synthesize attack queries, requiring either repeated queries to the target model or training a dedicated attack model. These expensive operations severely weaken attack leverage. In this paper, we propose \emph{search amplification}, a novel, model-feedback-free LRM-DoS paradigm. It employs the conflict count derived from an Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) solver as a low-cost external signal to guide the synthesis of inference-heavy Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) instances. Our key observation is that LRMs depend on trial-and-backtracking search when solving CSPs, where higher SMT conflict counts on a given CSP instance positively correlate with more extensive LRM backtracking search and substantially longer output trajectories. Building on this finding, we propose \textsc{SMTrap}, a lightweight, CPU-only framework. Guided by SMT conflict counts, \textsc{SMTrap} generates inference-heavy CSP queries without model queries, attack-model training, or GPU computation. Evaluations across seven frontier models demonstrate the state-of-the-art LRM-DoS capability of \textsc{SMTrap}, producing DoS effects multiple times stronger than existing baselines. To mitigate the threat of \textsc{SMTrap}, we demonstrate a tool-based mitigation that significantly cuts token usage.
Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on reasoning tasks, but whether this reflects faithful logical inference or heuristic approximation remains unclear. We study this question in legal entailment by comparing three paradigms, including pure LLM classification, LLM-based Formal Reasoning, and solver-based Formal Reasoning using the Z3 SMT solver, on a re-annotated subset of ContractNLI across five LLMs. Our re-annotation reveals a systematic and measurable gap between pragmatic legal interpretation and strict formal entailment, where a substantial proportion of legally sound inferences are not formally grounded without additional unstated assumptions. While introducing formal structure improves accuracy, with LLM-based Formal Reasoning achieving the highest benchmark performance, we show that this gain does not imply faithful reasoning. We identify three recurring failure modes: scope laundering, where LLMs report solver-inconsistent classifications without executing the underlying formal reasoning, producing conclusions that appear logically grounded but are not; implicit constraint blindness, where LLMs overlook logical constraints present in formal representations; and program synthesis failures, where LLMs generate incorrect Z3 code despite structured prompting. Critically, scope laundering persists across all models, raising serious concerns about the faithfulness of LLM-based formal reasoning as a proxy for symbolic execution. These results reveal a fundamental gap between benchmark accuracy and logical faithfulness.