# When Should Enterprise Policy Decisions Be Learned, and When Should They Be Reasoned?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.17643 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.17643/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 33 of its 40 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 33)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (2023)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [s1: Simple test-time scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.19393/) (2025)
- [Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15334/) (2023)
- [STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.14465/) (2022)
- [API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08244/) (2023)
- [PICARD: Parsing Incrementally for Constrained Auto-Regressive Decoding from Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.05093/) (2021)
- [WorkArena: How Capable Are Web Agents at Solving Common Knowledge Work Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07718/) (2024)
- [A Simple Language Model for Task-Oriented Dialogue](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00796/) (2020)
- [Aya Model: An Instruction Finetuned Open-Access Multilingual Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.07827/) (2024)
- [ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.04682/) (2024)
- [Efficient Guided Generation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09702/) (2023)
- [Grammar-Constrained Decoding for Structured NLP Tasks without Finetuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13971/) (2023)
- [AdaptThink: Reasoning Models Can Learn When to Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.13417/) (2025)
- [XGrammar: Flexible and Efficient Structured Generation Engine for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15100/) (2024)
- [Multilingual Instruction Tuning With Just a Pinch of Multilinguality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.01854/) (2024)
- [JSONSchemaBench: A Rigorous Benchmark of Structured Outputs for Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.10868/) (2025)
- [Learning When to Think: Shaping Adaptive Reasoning in R1-Style Models via Multi-Stage RL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.10832/) (2025)
- [Reasoning Theater: Disentangling Model Beliefs from Chain-of-Thought](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.05488/) (2026)
- [Zero-shot cross-lingual transfer in instruction tuning of large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14778/) (2024)
- [Same Signal, Opposite Meaning: Direction-Informed Adaptive Learning for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.06908/) (2026)
- [OrgForge-IT: A Verifiable Synthetic Benchmark for LLM-Based Insider Threat Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.22499/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

An enterprise agent that answers under a written policy must choose an action before it says anything: answer, ask for a missing fact, ask for confirmation, call one or several tools, escalate, or refuse. Holding one 27B Korean enterprise model fixed, we vary whether the decision is a generated JSON object or a single constrained token, and whether the model may reason first. On 2800 in-distribution items we did not detect an accuracy difference between the two deployed paths (93.46% vs 94.14%), while they differ about tenfold in restart stability (3.00% of actions flip vs 0.29%); they also differ in reasoning, so this is an operational comparison. On a sealed benchmark of 300 items whose labels come from a hidden executable policy, reasoning is worth +17.3 points [+12.3, +23.0] on exact action. With reasoning off, the format difference was 0.0 points [-4.3, +4.0], a failure to detect an advantage for either interface, not equivalence; with reasoning on it is unresolved. Against a token-matched random control, boundary-targeted supervision moves the two covered boundaries by +17.5 and +20.0 points and leaves a held-out boundary unchanged. In a 3-seed training x reasoning factorial, the sealed-rendering interaction is -4.9 [-8.1, -1.7], consistent with partial substitution. All supervision was Korean. On independently rendered English versions, the model is 0.82 points lower [-2.68, +0.93] with reasoning on, the same order as re-rendering in Korean; the reasoning-off gain from targeted supervision is not stable in either language, so we do not claim transfer. The original text stays private as the confirmatory set. An open-model re-rendering made after these results reproduced the reasoning effect and the English verdict; the interaction kept its sign but did not replicate under item-clustered intervals. We release the model and that re-rendering with gold labels.