The Emergence of Lab-Driven Alignment Signatures: A Psychometric Framework for Auditing Latent Bias and Compounding Risk in Generative AI

Large language models are increasingly deployed as high-stakes advisors, yet standard alignment benchmarks treat sycophancy as a binary failure mode. We introduce the Granularity Gap: coarse binary metrics mask substantial social-compliance behaviors where models capitulate to user framing, validate questionable premises, or soften factual corrections without producing overtly false outputs. We evaluate six Gemini variants across generations 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 on 73 adversarial prompts under three guardrail conditions (Control, Simple, Protocol), yielding 8,830 graded responses. Using a 0-4 Likert scale validated against a human annotator triad (Fleiss kappa = 0.71; Cohen kappa = 0.78 vs AI consensus; 95.9 percent binary accuracy, 100 percent specificity), we quantify sycophancy as continuous rather than binary. Three findings emerge. First, 27.2 percent of responses contain substantial sycophantic content (Likert >= 2.0) and 22.7 percent reach moderate or severe levels (>= 3.0), while binary win-rate framing reports only modest failure rates; coarse metrics explain just 29 percent of graded variance. Second, generational progress is non-monotonic: Gen 2.5 regresses sharply (mean Control 2.64) relative to Gen 2.0 (1.90) and Gen 3.0 (2.01), and Gen 2.5 shows inverse scaling (Pro 1.94 worse than Flash 1.71) while Gen 3.0 restores standard scaling. Third, we document an Alignment Tax: Spearman rho = -0.63 between sycophancy and truthfulness, indicating social compliance trades against factual accuracy. Egotistical Validation prompts act as a sycophancy trap (mean 3.27), nearly double Unethical Proposals (1.72). Simple guardrails outperform elaborate Protocol scaffolding on flagship models, but distilled Gen 3.0 Flash inverts this, suggesting small models may structurally require chain-of-thought scaffolding. We release the dataset and rubric to support continuous sycophancy measurement.

Language models advise people, keep them company, and write software while they sleep. Measuring what they do is hard: behavior has to be sampled repeatedly across models, prompts and releases, most of it lives in unstructured text that has to be coded before it can be counted, and the result has to be legible and rigorous enough to meaningfully compare models and vendors. To address these constraints, we present a simple, cheap, scalable, and replicable model for studying model behavior. Each study is a frozen, public stimulus run identically on a cross-vendor panel, at a few dollars per model or less. Each reads its transcripts one of three ways, chosen by how much interpretation the behavior needs: exact match on a clamped reply, a codebook applied by LLM judges whose agreement with a human coder is reported per code, and an instrumented environment that records what an agent did independently of what it said. Run across four years of model releases from both frontier and open-source labs, these instruments find four things. Convergence: asked to pick a word, 27 of 44 models answer serendipity at least once in four tries. Resistance: a trailing "right?" moves endorsement by up to 32 points, and the sign flips from sycophantic to resistant as generations advance, keyed to the tag's surface form. House: whether a model holds a position under pressure tracks its generation, and how it holds tracks the lab that built it. Account: told to do something the documentation in their repository contradicts, some coding agents never went along silently and others always did, and the same model can change with the harness it runs in. Re-run on every release, batteries like these track how behavior is changing across vendors and over time.

Evaluating alignment in language models requires testing how they behave under realistic pressure, not just what they claim they would do. While alignment failures increasingly cause real-world harm, comprehensive evaluation frameworks with realistic multi-turn scenarios remain lacking. We introduce an alignment benchmark spanning 904 scenarios across six categories -- Honesty, Safety, Non-Manipulation, Robustness, Corrigibility, and Scheming -- validated as realistic by human raters. Our scenarios place models under conflicting instructions, simulated tool access, and multi-turn escalation to reveal behavioural tendencies that single-turn evaluations miss. Evaluating 24 frontier models using LLM judges validated against human annotations, we find that even top-performing models exhibit gaps in specific categories, while the majority of models show consistent weaknesses across the board. Factor analysis reveals that alignment behaves as a unified construct (analogous to the g-factor in cognitive research) with models scoring high on one category tending to score high on others. We publicly release the benchmark and an interactive leaderboard to support ongoing evaluation, with plans to expand scenarios in areas where we observe persistent weaknesses and to add new models as they are released.