Untangling the Mechanisms of Misleading Context in Medical Question Answering

Large language models now answer medical questions with expert-level performance. However, the context these systems act on can be misleading, and misleading context can corrupt a model's medical judgment. To understand how misleading context corrupts this judgment, we examine the model's susceptibility to the context, disclosure of it, mechanism of corrupted reasoning, and monitorability of the decision. On the medical reasoning subset of MedMisBench, a clinician-reviewed question-answering benchmark of 8,627 questions, we inject two types of misleading context cues, fabricated evidence and a bare assertion. We test three reasoning models, two that expose their full reasoning trace and one frontier model that exposes only its response. All three are more susceptible to the assertion than to the fabricated evidence, adopting the asserted answer 10 to 27 points more often. The misleading cues are disclosed in 81 to 98% of traces but only 7 to 90% of responses, and the assertion is disclosed less often than evidence based cues. Resampling from reasoning traces without disclosure shows the two cues corrupt reasoning differently, evidence entering early and accumulating while the assertion redirects the conclusion near its end. An LLM monitor catches 78% of corrupted decisions at 5% false positives when reading an open model's trace with guidance, against at most 32% from any response. The misleading context that models are most susceptible to is disclosed least, and was caught reliably only from an open reasoning trace, which frontier providers withhold.

GitOfThoughts: Version-Controlled Reasoning and Agent Memory You Can Replay, Diff, and Merge

Large language model reasoning leaves no trace once it is done. The steps of a chain of thought disappear when the context window closes, a pruned search branch is just gone, and memory buffers cannot be diffed, merged, or audited. Code, infrastructure, and experiments are all version-controlled. Reasoning is not. GitOfThoughts stores an agent's reasoning tree as a git repository. Every scored thought becomes a commit, scores become notes, outcomes become tags, and retrieval is just git log over the agent's own history. We use this to test something simple. Does giving an agent memory from past problems actually make it more accurate? We tried five memory stores (none, a markdown file, a vector database, a graph, and git) across two benchmarks, two model sizes, and several pre-registered repeat experiments. The answer, on new problems, is no, including one promising early result that did not hold up when we repeated it. Memory only helps once the problem being solved is nearly identical to something already in memory (cosine similarity above about 0.8); below that, it does nothing. In other words, the model is finding the answer rather than learning the method. Even a model 4.5x larger still cannot pull a reusable method out of a worked example; it just gets better at spotting near-copies. The only thing that reliably helped on new problems was generating several answers and picking the most common one (self-consistency). So the case for using git as the memory store is not that it retrieves better. It is that it gives auditability, history, and the ability to merge two agents' memories, at no cost to accuracy.