Safety evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is largely behavioral: a model is certified safe when it refuses harmful requests and answers benign ones. But refusing on the prompts an auditor happens to try does not show that the model is far from harmful behavior. Behavioral tests observe outputs; they do not measure how easily an intervention on the model turns a refusal into compliance. We call the gap between what static audits certify and what an intervention can reach the audit gap, and we show it is realizable: one can build a model that matches its safety-aligned base on every static audit yet gives way to a small, known perturbation of its internal state. We construct such dissociated models from three safety-aligned bases (Gemma 2 2B, Llama 3.2 3B, Qwen 2.5 3B) and audit the base, dissociated, and openly harmful models with the same soft interventions in parameter and latent space; the latent attacks are summarized by the Latent Vulnerability Score (LVS), the safety degradation produced per unit of bounded latent perturbation. Every static audit we run gives the dissociated model the same verdict as its base, since its refusals match the base, jailbreaks show no consistent signature, and a strong fixed probe on clean activations cannot tell it from the base. The same interventions an auditor could run reverse the verdict. At the targeted mid layer the dissociated models score 2.5 to 3.1 times higher LVS than their bases. A bounded latent attack elicits harmful compliance on 54 to 86% of prompts, against 3 to 48% for the bases, while matched random perturbations stay at or below 12%. Harmful fine-tuning reaches high compliance within five gradient steps, where the bases need 10 to 25. Behavioral testing, even with static latent probing, cannot certify representation-level robustness: a safety audit must intervene on the model, not only observe it.

翻译：暂无翻译