When Does Activation Steering Change What a Model Computes From?

Activation steering can reliably change an agent’s output by modifying its internal activations. Yet arriving at the same answer need not involve the same computation: behavioral equivalence does not imply mechanistic equivalence. We test whether an activation edit changes the state used in subsequent computation or biases that computation toward the desired output. In a controlled state-tracking task, trace supervision creates an editable register: changing its internal value makes the model apply the next operation to the edited state. If so, transplanting that activation should be effective, and steering should remain effective at the scale of the natural source-to-target activation change. Neither prediction holds in the two selected model–task settings. Replacing the activation at one layer produces less than 2% of the target-answer margin gain from patching through all remaining layers, while natural-scale steering is similarly ineffective. The steering vectors have norms 77 and 26 times the median natural change in Qwen and Llama, producing 54% and 82% of the reference effect. Thus, a successful steering intervention need not reproduce the natural target activation at the intervention layer. More generally, an intervention should be interpreted as changing the computational state only when a later computation uses the edited value according to the semantics of that state.