When an LLM agent misbehaves, a human steps in, and that intervention is usually discarded or replayed as training data. We treat it instead as a measurement: a label pointing at the internal computation that failed. We study it in a controlled agent environment, on one failure (asking a clarifying question when the request was already unambiguous), with labels from a rule-based overseer validated against blind human judgment. Claims cover eligible models, which both over-ask and sometimes act on matched unambiguous requests: five of thirteen qualified (Qwen2.5-3B, gemma-2-2b, OLMo-3-7B, Mistral-Nemo-12B, Phi-4). Four findings. First, the ask-vs-act decision is causally localizable in every eligible family: a direction learned from intervention labels flips 72-100% of held-out over-asks at a definite residual-stream depth, with site and dose chosen on training data, and random directions under the same procedure flip at most one episode. Second, over-asking has two mechanistic signatures: in four families the model demonstrably knows the request is unambiguous (the belief is decodable, causally inert and orthogonal to the decision) and asks anyway; in the fifth, the rare over-asks track different world-representations. Third, steering gated on a probe readout removes most of the simulated oversight burden while legitimate questions survive (bootstrap 95% intervals exclude zero); a prompt instruction makes it worse. Fourth, consolidating the fix into the weights yields a map, not a rule: on one model a LoRA confined to the causal band passes every criterion fixed in advance while behavior cloning on identical data breaks retention; on three families the reverse holds; on the fifth the outcome crosses the boundary across seeds. A geometric rule written down in advance to predict the regime failed on two out-of-family tests; we report the failure and stop rather than fit a replacement.

翻译：暂无翻译