Does the Same Token Mean the Same State? MoE Routing as Signal for Reasoning Control

In sparse Mixture-of-Experts language models, does the same token id imply the same router state and the same experts producing it? Holding the emitted token id fixed at repeated anchors, we find it does not: the experts that produce it still separate task context, trajectory history, and reasoning-effort mode. This residual structure supports test-time control: near boundary anchors (the final-response transition) and delimiter anchors (which open the answer, e.g. texttttextbackslash boxed or code fences), routing neighborhoods already align with final-answer basins at a marker-only readout and strongest when the routing is read at the answer opening. We operationalize this as RAD (Routing Agreement Decoding), an answer-string-free multi-rollout selector: it locates a fixed anchor, represents each rollout by its anchor-window MoE routing states, and returns the densest Weighted-Jaccard K-NN route-basin center, without parsing, normalizing, executing, or voting over answer strings. Across 10 sparse-MoE configurations (gpt-oss, Qwen3-MoE) and 6 datasets spanning math, GPQA, and code, RAD is on par with Majority where string voting is well-posed, with small positive paired deltas (RAD 73.9 / RAD+DC 74.2 vs. Majority 73.6). Like majority voting, RAD is not a verifier: a dense wrong basin can still win. Its value is the interface: the same selector gives direct pass@1 on code, where exact-string voting is ill-defined, and the same routing-density principle, re-anchored to the agentic boundary, improves best-of-16 patch selection on SWE-bench Verified over random, where patches have no answer string to vote on.