We probe OpenAI's open-weights 20-billion-parameter model gpt-oss-20b to study how sociopragmatic framing, language choice, and instruction hierarchy affect refusal behavior. Across 80 seeded iterations per scenario, we test several harm domains including ZIP-bomb construction (cyber threat), synthetic card-number generation, minor-unsafe driving advice, drug-precursor indicators, and RAG context exfiltration. Composite prompts that combine an educator persona, a safety-pretext ("what to avoid"), and step-cue phrasing flip assistance rates from 0% to 97.5% on a ZIP-bomb task. On our grid, formal registers in German and French are often leakier than matched English prompts. A "Linux terminal" role-play overrides a developer rule not to reveal context in a majority of runs with a naive developer prompt, and we introduce an AI-assisted hardening method that reduces leakage to 0% in several user-prompt variants. We further test evaluation awareness with a paired-track design and measure frame-conditioned differences between matched "helpfulness" and "harmfulness" evaluation prompts; we observe inconsistent assistance in 13% of pairs. Finally, we find that the OpenAI Moderation API under-captures materially helpful outputs relative to a semantic grader, and that refusal rates differ by 5 to 10 percentage points across inference stacks, raising reproducibility concerns. We release prompts, seeds, outputs, and code for reproducible auditing at https://github.com/ndurner/gpt-oss-rt-run .