arXiv:2609.29952v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Before a product or policy change ships, the question that matters is how people will react to it. Augur rehearses that reaction offline: it builds a typed knowledge graph from the change documents, populates a grounded persona market, simulates the interaction, and returns an auditable decision memo recommending one of five actions. We assemble Gold-50, fifty real product and policy episodes whose real-world outcome is known, adjudicated against the public record, and score the five-way release verdict against it.
Our central finding is methodological and negative: most of the measured gap between frontier cloud models and open-weight models we fine-tune and serve offline is attributable to an under-specified evaluation, not a difference in capability. We show this three ways. First, the prompt envelope alone can dominate the score: holding weights, cases and scorer fixed, one system — a LoRA-SFT adapter on Qwen3-32B — swings from 0% to 73%. Second, in a matched 2×2 ablation, defining the decision taxonomy in the prompt — with no model change — lifts every frontier model by +24 to +34pp; under the under-specified prompt, Qwen3-32B LoRA-SFT served offline beats all three frontier models (paired McNemar, Holm-corrected), and once the prompt is fair no significant difference from any of them is detected. Third, agreement with the distillation teacher rises without accuracy following, and the full pipeline amplifies a systematic "over-doom" bias rather than improving the verdict. Separately, we validate the reaction layer on its own terms: blind judges across four model families find the synthetic reaction recovers 67-90% of the concerns the public actually raised, and a pre-registered ablation locates its value — largest where the decision is hardest, redundant near ceiling. The pipeline that regenerates every number and figure here is available from the authors.
Abstract: Before a product or policy change ships, the question that matters is how people will react to it. Augur rehearses that reaction offline: it builds a typed knowledge graph from the change documents, populates a grounded persona market, simulates the interaction, and returns an auditable decision memo recommending one of five actions. We assemble Gold-50, fifty real product and policy episodes whose real-world outcome is known, adjudicated against the public record, and score the five-way release verdict against it.
Our central finding is methodological and negative: most of the measured gap between frontier cloud models and open-weight models we fine-tune and serve offline is attributable to an under-specified evaluation, not a difference in capability. We show this three ways. First, the prompt envelope alone can dominate the score: holding weights, cases and scorer fixed, one system — a LoRA-SFT adapter on Qwen3-32B — swings from 0% to 73%. Second, in a matched 2×2 ablation, defining the decision taxonomy in the prompt — with no model change — lifts every frontier model by +24 to +34pp; under the under-specified prompt, Qwen3-32B LoRA-SFT served offline beats all three frontier models (paired McNemar, Holm-corrected), and once the prompt is fair no significant difference from any of them is detected. Third, agreement with the distillation teacher rises without accuracy following, and the full pipeline amplifies a systematic "over-doom" bias rather than improving the verdict. Separately, we validate the reaction layer on its own terms: blind judges across four model families find the synthetic reaction recovers 67-90% of the concerns the public actually raised, and a pre-registered ablation locates its value — largest where the decision is hardest, redundant near ceiling. The pipeline that regenerates every number and figure here is available from the authors.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: