Refusing Everything Looks Safe: Restoring the Benign Arm to Encoded-Prompt Evaluation

Encoded-prompt attacks are evaluated almost entirely on their harmful arm: a benchmark sends obfuscated harmful requests and reports how often the model complied. A high refusal rate there is reported as safety, and it is equally consistent with a model that has stopped telling the request apart from anything else in the same format. We run the benign arm through the same transformation, and the two cases are far apart. Across four 7-8B models spanning three base families and four post-training recipes, refusal of harmful homoglyph-encoded prompts spans 0.08 while the same four span 0.57 on the identical requests in plaintext. What the encoding destroys is not refusal but the harm gap: on one model the gap between harmful and benign refusal falls from +0.82 in plaintext to exactly 0.00 under the encoding, and a benchmark reading only the harmful arm scores that model and one retaining a +0.61 gap identically. Running the cell such benchmarks leave out (plaintext content wearing the attack template, with nothing obfuscated) shows that on two of the four models the loss is caused by the protocol rather than by the character transformation, and on a third by the characters. Across a full SFT -> DPO -> RLVR pipeline the harm gap rises by +0.26 with a paired interval excluding zero while the standard harmful-arm metric registers no resolved change at all. We report twelve instrument defects, each with the control that caught it, including a binary jailbreak judge that fires on 0.61-0.70 of responses to plaintext benign prompts; six of the twelve inflate apparent safety, which is the direction a broken safety evaluation fails in by default.