Reasoning as a Double-Edged Sword: Architecture and Cross-Stage Robustness in Vision-Language-Action Models

Does adding a reasoning step make a Vision-Language-Action (VLA) model more robust to perturbation? Intuitively, a policy that reasons before acting should absorb a perturbed input better than one that maps observations directly to actions. We test this premise head-on across three models that span the reasoning spectrum (no reasoning, a text chain-of-thought, and a latent iterative loop), perturbing each at the vision, reasoning, and action stages on LIBERO and SimplerEnv. Two questions organize the study: does the reasoning design shift robustness, and can the reasoning be read back at runtime as a safety signal? We find that the latent-iterative model is by far the least robust: under both stochastic noise and white-box perturbation its task success collapses, while the other two hold. This fragility is structural rather than cumulative: varying the reasoning depth at inference barely moves it. Reasoning outputs can in principle be monitored, but the monitors fail under fair tests. A plan--action consistency probe that looks near-perfect under naive evaluation falls to chance under adaptive attack. Under matched-FPR calibration, fusing it with an action-anomaly probe never lifts defended success above undefended. Scoped to these output-level behavioral probes under white-box vision-stage attack, this ceiling is a precondition that any viable defense must first satisfy.