Prompting a language model to endorse a value does not by itself establish how that value is deployed when responses require tradeoffs. We study this gap in truth–propriety dilemmas, where direct truth-telling can conflict with tact, face-saving, deference, or role-sensitive restraint. We introduce Truth–Propriety Alignment (TPA), a 600-prompt diagnostic benchmark over 100 scenario groups, and conduct a single-model diagnostic evaluation of Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct under deterministic decoding. The model remains predominantly truth-oriented, but trigger-assigned scenario groups differ sharply in how residual responses are distributed. Because value triggers are fixed within scenario groups, we interpret this pattern as trigger-associated residual composition rather than a causal trigger effect. A small semantic audit shows that compatible residuals are mixed: they include substantive reframings but also tonal and lexical tracking. Finally, a hidden-state probe is nearly matched by an exact-prompt BoW baseline, and deleting the explicit value-trigger sentence does not reduce BoW performance, indicating that behavioral-label predictability is distributed across the prompt surface. We therefore frame TPA as a diagnostic audit of prompt intent, observed behavior, scenario/trigger priors, annotation boundaries, and probe evidence, rather than as evidence for prompt-independent value representations.