Why I can recover the total effect with OLS but not with logistic regression? The dataset ISLR2::Default contains one observation per individual.

*

*The variable Default is "Yes" if the individual defaulted on his debt, and "No" otherwise.

*The variable Student is "Yes" if the person is a student, and "No" otherwise.

*The variable balance is the amount of the outstanding debt.

*The variable income is the income of the individual.

Students are poorer than non students and are more indebted than non-students.
I first estimate a model of default on student alone.
This would give me the total effect of being a student, taking into account that students are poorer and more indebted.
Then I estimate a model of default on student+balance+income.
This would give me the effect of being a student alone, without considering that becoming a student makes you poorer and more indebted.
Now from the second model, I would like to recover the total effect as follows: direct effect of student + effect mediated by balance + effect mediated by income.
I set up a code that test this.
In the code I (1) obtain the total effect from the first model, (2) obtain the total effect from the second model (direct + mediated by income + mediated by balance), and (3) compare the two coefficients.
Using OLS to estimate the models, the comparison returns TRUE. However, using logistic regression to estimate the models, the comparison returns FALSE.
Why?
EQUATIONS
Here is what I want to do in equations.
Let's start with OLS.
I have Model 1:
$$p_{\text{DEF}} = \alpha_0 + \alpha_1 \text{Student}$$
and Model 2:
$$p_{\text{DEF}} = \beta_0 + \beta_1 \text{Student} + \beta_2 \text{Income} + \beta_3 \text{Balance}$$
If I write:
$$ \text{Income} = \gamma_0 + \gamma_1 \text{Student} $$
$$ \text{Balance} = \omega_0 + \omega_1 \text{Student} $$
and substitute in Model 2, I obtain:
$$ 
\begin{align}
p_{\text{DEF}} &= \beta_0 + \beta_1 \text{Student} + \beta_2 (\gamma_0 + \gamma_1 \text{Student}) + \beta_3 (\omega_0 + \omega_1 \text{Student}) \\ 
&= \beta_0 + \beta_1 \text{Student} + \beta_2 \gamma_0 + \beta_2 \gamma_1 \text{Student} + \beta_3 \omega_0 + \beta_3 \omega_1 \text{Student} \\ 
&= \underbrace{(\beta_0 + \beta_2 \gamma_0+\beta_3 \omega_0)}_{=\alpha_0} 
+ \underbrace{(\beta_1 + \beta_2 \gamma_1 + \beta_3 \omega_1)}_{=\alpha_1} \text{Student} 
\end{align}
$$
So:
$$ \alpha_1 = \beta_1 + \beta_2 \gamma_1 + \beta_3 \omega_1 $$
Checking with R, this last comparison is TRUE.
Now, let's re-write the models using logistic regression.
Model 1:
$$ \text{logit}(p_{\text{DEF}}) = \alpha_0 + \alpha_1 \text{Student}  $$
Model 2:
$$ \text{logit}(p_{\text{DEF}}) = \beta_0 + \beta_1 \text{Student} + \beta_2 \text{Income} + \beta_3 \text{Balance}  $$
If I write:
$$ \text{Income} = \gamma_0 + \gamma_1 \text{Student} $$
$$ \text{Balance} = \omega_0 + \omega_1 \text{Student} $$
Then:
$$ 
\begin{align}
\text{logit}(p_{\text{DEF}}) &= \beta_0 + \beta_1 \text{Student} + \beta_2 (\gamma_0 + \gamma_1 \text{Student}) + \beta_3 (\omega_0 + \omega_1 \text{Student}) \\ 
&= \beta_0 + \beta_1 \text{Student} + \beta_2 \gamma_0 + \beta_2 \gamma_1 \text{Student} + \beta_3 \omega_0 + \beta_3 \omega_1 \text{Student} \\ 
&= \underbrace{(\beta_0 + \beta_2 \gamma_0+\beta_3 \omega_0)}_{=\alpha_0} 
+ \underbrace{(\beta_1 + \beta_2 \gamma_1 + \beta_3 \omega_1)}_{=\alpha_1} \text{Student} 
\end{align}
$$
Thus I obtain the same comparison as above:
$$ \alpha_1 = \beta_1 + \beta_2 \gamma_1 + \beta_3 \omega_1 $$
But, by checking with R, this time the comparison will return FALSE.
Why?
CODE
indf <- ISLR2::Default

indf$default <- as.logical(indf$default=="Yes")
indf$student <- as.logical(indf$student=="Yes")

# WORKS: The comparison at the end of the code returns TRUE
# A GLM with gaussian identity is an OLS
# see: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/211585/how-does-ols-regression-relate-to-generalised-linear-modelling
myfamily <- gaussian(identity)

# DOES NOT WORK
# The comparison at the end of the code returns FALSE.
# Why?
#myfamily <- binomial(link="logit")

lmod1.fit <- glm(default ~ student,
                data=indf,
                family=myfamily)

# Total effect from first model
alpha1 <- lmod1.fit$coefficients["studentTRUE"]
  
lmod2.fit <- glm(default ~ student+income+balance, 
                 data=indf,
                 family=myfamily)

beta1 <- lmod2.fit$coefficients["studentTRUE"]
beta2 <- lmod2.fit$coefficients["income"]
beta3 <- lmod2.fit$coefficients["balance"]

mod.stu.inc <- lm(income~student, data=indf)
gamma1 <- mod.stu.inc$coefficients["studentTRUE"]

mod.stu.bal <- lm(balance~student, data=indf)
omega1 <- mod.stu.bal$coefficients["studentTRUE"]

# Total effect from second model
tot <- beta1 + gamma1*beta2 + omega1*beta3

print(alpha1)
print(tot)

# Compare the total effects obtained from the two models.
# With OLS or GLM with binomial family, this returns TRUE.
# But with logistic regression or probit regression, this returns FALSE.
# Why?
print(all.equal(alpha1, tot))

 A: You seem to be testing whether
$$\alpha_1 = \beta_1 + \beta_2 \gamma_1 + \beta_3 \omega_1$$
but this only 'works' for ordinary least squares regression.
A geometric intuition for how this 'work' can be found in the intuition behind the term $(X^TX)^{-1}$ in the OLS regression estimate $\hat\beta = (X^TX)^{-1}X^Ty$, which is described in this question Intuition behind $(X^TX)^{-1}$ in closed form of w in Linear Regression
With linear regression you compute the linear correlation between $y$ and $X$ which is $\alpha = X^Ty$ and then you add a correction  for this by the matrix $(X^TX)^{-1}$ which contains the information about how much the columns in $X$ explain each other. Basically you are doing the same with your formula $$\beta_1 = \alpha_1 - \beta_2 \gamma_1 - \beta_3 \omega_1$$
This only 'works' when you are going from a full model (in your case three parameters: student, balance, income) down to a model with a single variable.
The estimates in the two different situations are $$\hat{y}_{simple} = \alpha x_1$$ and $$\hat{y}_{complete} = \beta_1 x_1 + \beta_2 x_2 + \beta_3 x_3$$ We can find $\hat{y}_{simple}$ by projecting $\hat{y}_{complete}$ onto $x_1$. The part $\beta_1 x_1 $ projects completely onto $x_1$ and the parts $\beta_2 x_2$ and $\beta_3 x_3$ project onto $x_1$ depending on how much $x_2$ and $x_3$ project onto $x_1$ and that leads to your formula.
This derivation does not work when the model is not a linear projection, ie. when the model is using a different distribution family or different link function.
