his paper examines a structural limitation in modern large language models: they cannot guarantee stability, replayability, or verifiable correctness because reasoning is driven by stochastic inference at the boundary where decisions are formed. Many familiar failure modes such as hallucination, interpretation drift, and non reproducibility are not problems of tuning or scale. They are architectural. This paper argues that these failures arise from systems that re infer task meaning and reasoning state on each run. In response, it outlines a deterministic systems framework where reasoning is constrained by externally governed state, a fixed task ontology, and execution paths that can be audited and replayed. The work is conceptual and architectural in nature. It does not introduce a new model. Instead, it defines a set of system level constraints under which reasoning systems can be made verifiable, explainable, and appropriate for high stakes use. This manuscript is intended as a foundational position paper and is paired with ongoing empirical and implementation work.
Armonti Du-Bose-Hill (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: