Your AI Reasoning Model Has a Hidden Sensitivity to Deleted Conversation History — and It Varies Wildly by Model

First blind measurement of what happens when reasoning traces get stripped across providers: the penalty ranges from -4.4 to +51.3 points depending on the model, not the deployment.

Imagine you're a surgeon scrubbing in for a complex multi-stage operation, but between each stage someone wipes the whiteboard where you've been tracking your surgical plan. Some surgeons barely notice — they reconstruct the plan from context clues. Others fall apart completely. The question this paper asks is: when reasoning models lose their chain-of-thought history between turns in a multi-step tool-calling session, how much does performance degrade? The answer is not 'it depends on the task' — it depends on the model, full stop. The committed claim: deletion sensitivity — the performance delta when a reasoning model's prior-turn traces are stripped away — is a stable, measurable property of the model itself, not of the deployment, the task distribution, or the seed. Across seven open-weight reasoning models, three rendering conditions, three seeds, and 794 tasks on BFCL v3's official checker, the same deletion operation produces anywhere from a 4.4-point improvement to a 51.3-point collapse, with both extremes statistically excluding zero. The key finding is that this number is intrinsic: re-dose one model from 0% to 100% deletion and the reading wobbles by at most 1.5 points. This matters because of how multi-turn AI tool-calling actually works in production. When you chain models across providers — say, a routing layer from one vendor calls a reasoning model from another — the upstream provider typically binds each reasoning trace to its issuer. Cross-provider forwarding strips the history. The paper notes that 73% of user interactions in the 94k-conversation ShareGPT dataset span multiple turns, so this isn't an edge case. It's the default operating condition for a large fraction of real traffic, and until now nobody had measured the cost. The experimental design is clean: three rendering conditions (full history retained, history deleted, and a control), seven models, three random seeds per condition, all evaluated against BFCL v3's official checker. The 794 tasks are drawn from Berkeley's Function Calling Leaderboard, a community benchmark with published ground truth. The three-seed design with blind evaluation across conditions is solid methodology for this kind of measurement. The authors don't cherry-pick the flattering models — the full range from slight improvement to catastrophic collapse is reported. The architectural insight is that this is fundamentally a measurement paper, not a methods paper. It doesn't propose a fix. It proposes a diagnostic: a two-cell screen (one retention run, one deletion run) that any team can execute to get the deletion-sensitivity reading for any model. The reading is cheap to obtain and stable across deployments. When a model gets retrained or re-released, it's a new model that needs re-screening — but only two runs. The practical implication is that deletion sensitivity should become a first-class routing parameter. If you're building an agentic system that chains reasoning models across providers, you need to know each model's deletion sensitivity number the way you know its context window or latency. A model with +51.3 points of deletion sensitivity is catastrophically unsuitable for cross-provider multi-turn pipelines. A model at -4.4 actually benefits from deletion — it was confused by its own prior traces. This is actionable information that most production routing systems currently ignore. The limitation is scope: seven models, one benchmark (BFCL v3), one task family (tool calling). The authors don't test whether the finding generalizes to other multi-turn task types — coding, planning, retrieval-augmented generation. That's the obvious next experiment, and the honest read is that they scoped tightly to make the measurement clean rather than broad. The finding that deletion sensitivity is model-intrinsic is strong within the tested domain; whether it holds for arbitrary multi-turn reasoning is an open question worth tracking.