# What Was Said, Not What Was 'Thought': Type-6 Logic for CoT Verification

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.38420 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.38420/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 5 of its 51 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/prompting-and-chain-of-thought-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.14275/) (2022)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [Reasoning Models Struggle to Control their Chains of Thought](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.05706/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We introduce Type-6 logic, a variant of dynamic epistemic logic augmented with two operators (uncertainty and recurrence), designed to model the inferential dynamics of contemporary large language model (LLM) chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. Type-6 accounts for common LLM reasoning pathologies such as unlicensed revision, enthymemes, loopbacks, and unverifiable/incorrect claims. We propose a verifier based on Type-6 logic that builds a graph out the trace, and checks it against Type-6's axioms and inference rules. We evaluate our framework on LLM-generated CoTs four splits spanning formal and informal reasoning. Our verifier detects structurally unsound reasoning steps that surface-level heuristics miss, and allows for easy visualisation of the model's reasoning process. In our corpus, our verifier shows that derived contradiction is the most common hard-fail category in CoT, and that only about 3% of the propositions of a trace have impact on the final derivation. Ablation studies show that other verification methods (LLMs-as-judges, other neurosymbolic approaches, etc.) cannot be considered interchangeable: for example, agreement between LLMs-as-judges and LINC is kappa ≈ 0.034, and this persists within a method across underlying models. Type-6, however, is the most agreed-with method amongst the ones we tested. We prove our verifier runs on average-case linear time; and release our logic specification and artefacts.