Language models face two opposing concerns: monoculture, in which models err in correlated ways, and multiplicity, in which equally accurate models make conflicting decisions. The rise of reasoning models has complicated this debate: On the one hand, reasoning may increase model agreement if models anchor on the same salient features or follow similar reasoning paths.

On the other hand, stochastic reasoning traces may introduce additional branch points leading to more diverse predictions. We resolve this tension by distinguishing reasoning as an intervention from reasoning as an observed behavior.

We compare agreement under controlled changes in reasoning effort with agreement across observed reasoning lengths, measuring both against the agreement expected from model accuracy. Across nine models from two developers and three classification tasks, enabling reasoning increases agreement between models evaluated on the same individuals.

Yet the individuals who elicit longer reasoning traces receive less consistent predictions across models. Both patterns persist after accounting for differences in accuracy.

Asking models to reason more thus promotes agreement, while observing them reason longer signals disagreement.