Schema-guided reasoning pipelines ask LLMs to produce explicit intermediate structures -- rubrics, checklists, verification queries -- before committing to a final decision. But do these structures causally determine the output, or merely accompany it? We introduce a causal evaluation protocol that makes this directly measurable: by selecting tasks where a deterministic function maps intermediate structures to decisions, every controlled edit implies a unique correct output. Across eight models and three benchmarks, models appear self-consistent with their own intermediate structures but fail to update predictions after intervention in up to 60% of cases -- revealing that apparent faithfulness is fragile once the intermediate structure changes. When derivation of the final decision from the structure is delegated to an external tool, this fragility largely disappears; however, prompts which ask to prioritize the intermediate structure over the original input do not materially close the gap. Overall, intermediate structures in schema-guided pipelines function as influential context rather than stable causal mediators.
@article{arxiv.2603.16475,
title = {Breaking the Chain: A Causal Analysis of LLM Faithfulness to Intermediate Structures},
author = {Oleg Somov and Mikhail Chaichuk and Mikhail Seleznyov and Alexander Panchenko and Elena Tutubalina},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.16475},
year = {2026}
}