Comment by RIMR

From what I understand, it's a fundamental problem of how to use the ridiculous-but-effective reasoning prose behind the scenes, but get concise and coherent responses to the user.

You want the reasoning prose to be somewhat strange. It's not formulated for you to read, but for the model to loop back on itself. But the model still has to arrive at a deliverable answer, in a much different writing style than it reaons in, and the result is the overly flowery language produced by certain models.

Honestly, these models just need a humanizing stage at the end to compensate for the reasoning stage at the beginning, but that costs more tokens and increases the number of hallucinations.