Right Answer, Wrong Mechanism: Detecting Pernicious Divergence in Causal Interventions

Causal interventions such as activation patching and distributed alignment search (DAS) are the main tool for making mechanistic claims about neural networks. Recent work showed that these interventions routinely push representations off the model's natural distribution, and that such divergence is sometimes harmless and sometimes pernicious: it can recruit pathways the model never uses on natural inputs, so that an intervention produces the expected answer through the wrong mechanism. No method currently tells the two cases apart. We make this question testable by planting hidden pathways inside pretrained language models; the pathways are silent on every benchmark prompt by construction, so which interventions depend on them is known exactly. Across 72 configurations and 100,800 interventions on GPT-2 small, we find three things. (i) Nearest-neighbour and local-PCA distances at the intervention site, as used in prior work, score below chance (AUROC 0.35-0.47) at picking out interventions that give the right answer through a planted pathway. (ii) Hidden-Pathway Contribution (HPC), a label-free test that clamps downstream units to the regime of natural runs with the same output and measures how much of the decision disappears, flags pathway-dominated interventions with AUROC >= 0.99 when the pathway shows up as unit-level out-of-regime activity, but fails when every unit stays within its natural range, which we identify as the open problem. (iii) Optimised interventions actively seek hidden pathways: on a gender task, DAS routes 90-95% of its successes through planted pathways for three of four families, and a downstream on-manifold penalty cuts this share to under 5% at a cost of 6-11 points of success rate. In unmodified GPT-2, successful interventions show almost no unit-level out-of-regime reliance.