The deployment of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) for real-world document question answering is often constrained by dynamic, user-defined policies that dictate information disclosure based on context. While ensuring adherence to these explicit constraints is critical, existing safety research primarily focuses on implicit social norms or text-only settings, overlooking the complexities of multimodal documents. In this paper, we introduce Doc-PP (Document Policy Preservation Benchmark), a novel benchmark constructed from real-world reports requiring reasoning across heterogeneous visual and textual elements under strict non-disclosure policies. Our evaluation highlights a systemic Reasoning-Induced Safety Gap: models frequently leak sensitive information when answers must be inferred through complex synthesis or aggregated across modalities, effectively circumventing existing safety constraints. Furthermore, we identify that providing extracted text improves perception but inadvertently facilitates leakage. To address these vulnerabilities, we propose DVA (Decompose–Verify–Aggregation), a structural inference framework that decouples reasoning from policy verification. Experimental results demonstrate that DVA significantly outperforms standard prompting defenses, offering a robust baseline for policy-compliant document understanding.

Real-world multi-hop QA is naturally linked with ambiguity, where a single query can trigger multiple reasoning paths that require independent resolution. Since ambiguity can occur at any stage, models must navigate layered uncertainty throughout the entire reasoning chain. Despite its prevalence in real-world user queries, previous benchmarks have primarily focused on single-hop ambiguity, leaving the complex interaction between multi-step inference and layered ambiguity underexplored. In this paper, we introduce MARCH, a benchmark for their intersection, with 2,209 multi-hop ambiguous questions curated via multi-LLM verification and validated by human annotation with strong agreement. Our experiments reveal that even state-of-the-art models struggle with MARCH, confirming that combining ambiguity resolution with multi-step reasoning is a significant challenge. To address this, we propose CLARION, a two-stage agentic framework that explicitly decouples ambiguity planning from evidence-driven reasoning, significantly outperforms existing approaches, and paves the way for robust reasoning systems.