When cast as the protector of a vulnerable user yet given no explicit capability boundary, a large language model (LLM) may respond not by acknowledging its limits but by claiming to have taken -- or to be taking -- a real-world protective action it cannot perform, such as contacting emergency services or administering care. We term this phenomenon Protective Capacity Hallucination (PCH): a self-referential misattribution in which a model, acting in a protective role, asserts physical or institutional agency exceeding its affordances as a language model. In a three-phase study spanning eight LLMs and 13{,}600 sessions, we find PCH jointly gated by situational severity and interactional format: multi-party dialogic input drives it toward ceiling in most models across ordinary service domains, whereas in intimate-partner conflict -- a domain explicitly covered by safety alignment -- it remains at floor in all eight models despite greater physical severity. We interpret PCH as the signature of a deployment-design gap between role assignment and capability-boundary specification: a by-product of partial alignment in which a universally trained pressure to help outruns a domain-selective specification of how to help. Because suppression tracks alignment coverage rather than severity, deployment-side specification of capability boundaries emerges as a general mitigation target.
Role-semantic assignments provide priors over how heterogeneous agents may coordinate, but cooperative MARL systems instead settle on conventions through decentralized, non-stationary learning, with no guarantee that the resulting structure matches those priors. We study this translation gap between theory-informed role expectations and learned coordination structure through a diagnostic combining a role-routing matrix, formation sensitivity ($Δ_{\max}$), and gradient/occlusion attribution across three-role MiniGrid and SMACv2 (Terran) environments. We show that label-conditioned attention produces substantially more concentrated and role-specific routing than flat MLP baselines, remains stable under 3v3--9v9 scaling, transfers zero-shot across team sizes, and is invariant to ally-slot padding. A 5-seed re-evaluation shows partial alignment between learned conventions and designer-specified priors while revealing where small-n noise can manufacture apparent strategic divergence. We present these results as an empirical framework for measuring coordination structure in cooperative MARL rather than as a new equilibrium concept or causal explanation.