Backdoor attacks pose a serious threat to large language models (LLMs), but existing defenses remain fragmented, failing to provide unified defense against both dirty-label and clean-label attacks. To investigate why such fragmentation arises, we present the first systematic feature-level mechanistic analysis of LLM backdoors using sparse autoencoders (SAEs). Starting from a 2×2 comparison of clean and poisoned models on clean and triggered inputs, we trace backdoor-induced logit shifts to high-contributing SAE features and categorize them into four roles: interaction, suppressed, mixed, and weight-modified features. This taxonomy reveals systematic encoding differences: dirty-label backdoors are dominated by isolated interaction features, whereas clean-label backdoors rely more on heterogeneous mixtures of mixed and weight-modified features. These differences explain why existing defenses remain fragmented across attack paradigms. We validate this hypothesis through inference-time feature clamping, which reduces ASR to at most **10.8%** in most dirty-label settings and at most **15.4%** in the majority of clean-label settings, while preserving benign-task performance. These results show that SAE-based analysis can explain defense fragmentation and guide interpretable backdoor mitigation.

While Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has become a standard paradigm for eliciting complex reasoning capabilities in Large Language Models, it inadvertently exposes a new attack surface for backdoor attacks. Existing CoT backdoor attacks typically manipulate the intermediate reasoning steps to steer the model toward incorrect answers. However, these corrupted reasoning traces are readily detected by prevalent process-monitoring defenses. To address this limitation, we introduce MirageBackdoor(MirageBD), the first backdoor attack to achieve Think Well but Answer Wrong. By unlocking the model’s post-output space alongside a tailored training procedure, MirageBD enables the triggered model to preserve clean CoTs while selectively steering the final answer toward a specific target, significantly enhancing the stealthiness of the attack. Experiments show that MirageBD generally achieves over 90% attack success rate across four datasets and five models with a poison ratio of only 5%. Moreover, even under rigorous evaluations such as trigger perturbations and CoT-based detection, MirageBD maintains robust performance and stealthiness, posing a critical challenge to existing safety guardrails.