Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have intensified the debate surrounding the fundamental nature of their reasoning capabilities. While achieving high performance on benchmarks such as GPQA and MMLU, these models exhibit limitations in more complex reasoning tasks, highlighting the need for more rigorous evaluation methodologies. We propose a novel phenomenological approach that goes beyond traditional accuracy metrics to probe the underlying mechanisms of model behavior, establishing a framework that could broadly impact how we analyze and understand AI systems. Using positional bias in multiple-choice reasoning tasks as a case study, we demonstrate how systematic perturbations can reveal fundamental aspects of model decision-making. To analyze these behaviors, we develop two complementary phenomenological models: a Probabilistic Mixture Model (PMM) that decomposes model responses into reasoning, memorization, and guessing components and an Information-Theoretic Consistency (ITC) analysis that quantifies the relationship between model confidence and strategy selection. Through controlled experiments on reasoning benchmarks, we show that true reasoning remains challenging for current models, with apparent success often relying on sophisticated combinations of memorization and pattern matching rather than genuine logical deduction. More fundamentally, we demonstrate that accuracy alone often overstates a model's reasoning abilities, as model behavior can be characterized through underlying mechanisms in the phase space of cognitive strategies, revealing how models dynamically balance different approaches when responding to queries. This framework enables quantitative criteria for real-world deployments, allowing applications to specify reliability thresholds based on strategy distributions rather than aggregate performance metrics.