Chain-of-thought monitoring is proposed for AI oversight, yet evaluations often provide monitors with a trusted reference answer. We ask whether answer access improves reasoning verification or mainly exposes incorrect conclusions. We collected 237 step-numbered solutions to 79 Humanity's Last Exam physics questions from three frontier models, with no inserted errors, and independently labelled final-answer correctness and the first false step. The reference standard combined physicist annotations, an independent LLM debate, and source-masked adjudication. This yielded 24 critical traces in which the answer was correct but the trace contained a genuine error. 8 LLM monitors evaluated traces blind, with an unverified or certified answer, or after a blind commitment. Certification raised mean balanced accuracy from 0.637 to 0.796, while exact first-error localization rose from 0.261 to 0.379. Certification changed recall (the fraction of error traces flagged as erroneous) from 0.653 to 0.951 on wrong-answer traces but from 0.521 to 0.438 on critical traces; the contrast had the same direction for all 8 monitors (question-bootstrap 95% CI [+0.256, +0.506]). After blind commitment, monitors shown the answer newly flagged 93.8% of previously passed wrong-answer traces as erroneous, but only 18.0% of critical traces. Answer access therefore improves conclusion-consistency checking rather than independent verification of the supporting argument. For AI safety, these traces provide a benign analogue of reward hacking: an acceptable output does not establish that the process producing it was sound. Although the errors studied here were ordinary and mostly non-load-bearing rather than adversarial, trusted-answer evaluations may similarly overstate monitoring capability when acceptable outputs conceal unsound reasoning.

翻译：暂无翻译