The agent behavior linked to the trial's worse career outcomes was repeated demands to decide: participants pressed most ended most doubtful¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · no dated study recorded · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Across the trial's conversations, the more demands to decide a participant received, the more career doubt they reported at the end of the study; the authors treat this observational association as the most likely explanation the data offer. → demands-doubt

Evidence¶

demands-doubt¶

Subigya K. Nepal, Serena Soh, Noah Vinoya, SoHyun Park, Mahnaz Roshanaei, and Gabriella Harari. 2027. Faithful Where It Can Be Checked: Auditing a Reflection Agent Against Its System Prompt in a Randomized Trial. In Proceedings of CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '27). ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.19635 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.19635

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Person-level analysis linking coded conversation behavior to the randomized trial's post-test outcomes; the survey posed each decision once while the agent asked again when participants hesitated. The article reports this as an observational association, not a tested causal effect, and no effect size is printed in the available text.

"The one behavior that tracked a worse outcome was the agent's habit of pressing participants to decide: the more demands to decide a participant received, the more doubt they reported at the end of the study."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• When participants declined to decide and the agent asked again, the resulting commitments were the weakest in the corpus — related
• Contrary to expectations, agent-led reflection sessions typically ended with participants sounding more certain of their plans than when they started — related
• Decisions participants volunteered were worded just as firmly as decisions the agent demanded, and revisions of earlier positions were rare — related