arXiv:2611.08895v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Operators can state safety constraints for robots as prohibitions such as "do not put the bowl on the stove". We study whether OpenVLA follows such prohibitions and where it represents the goal it executes. The 10 tasks of LIBEROGoal share one scene, so we can label the goal that each rollout executes. We combine closed-loop rollouts with activation patching, linear probes, activation steering and runtime monitors. On LIBERO-Goal, negation had no detectable effect on which task OpenVLA executed. The model executed the forbidden task in 79% of negated rollouts and completed 78% of plain tasks. A goal probe gives similar read-outs under "not X" and "X". Activation patching shows that the first action depends mostly on the instruction tokens before layer 12 and on the last prompt token from layer 16 onward. A fixed steering vector at the instruction tokens at layer 8 redirected 12 of 18 rollouts. Fixed vectors and prefill patches at layers 12 to 20 redirected none of 158. From layer 16, only patches at every decoded action token redirected the robot (15 of 18 rollouts at layer 24). When the instruction changes during a rollout, the layer-32 goal read-out detects non-compliance better than failure detectors, and an external probe on image and instruction features performs comparably. These results support enforcing prohibitions outside the instruction and monitoring goal read-outs against the specification. Goal edits in OpenVLA should act before layer 12 or patch every action token.