AI Alignment Breaks at the Edge

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.

Alignment evaluation in machine learning has largely become evaluation of models. Influential benchmarks score model outputs under fixed inputs, such as truthfulness, instruction following, or pairwise preference, and these scores are often used to support claims about deployed alignment. This paper argues that deployment-relevant alignment cannot be inferred from model-level evaluation alone. Alignment claims should instead be indexed to the level at which evidence is collected: model-level, response-level, interaction-level, or deployment-level. Two studies support this position. First, a structured audit of eleven alignment benchmarks, extended to a sixteen-benchmark corpus, dual-coded against an eight-dimension rubric with Cohen's kappa = 0.87, finds that user-facing verification support is absent across every benchmark examined, while process steerability is nearly absent. The few interactional benchmarks identified, including tau-bench, CURATe, Rifts, and Common Ground, remain fragmented in coverage, and benchmark construction rather than data source determines what is measured. Second, a blinded cross-model stress test using 180 transcripts across three frontier models and four scaffolds finds that the same verification scaffold raises one model's verification support to ceiling while leaving another categorically unchanged. This shows that scaffold efficacy is model-dependent and that the gap identified by the audit cannot be closed at the model level alone. We propose a system-level evaluation agenda: alignment profiles instead of single scores, fixed-scaffolding protocols for comparable interactional evaluation, and reporting templates that make the inferential distance between evaluation evidence and deployment claims explicit.

Safety evaluations can mischaracterize deployed behaviour if artificial-intelligence systems respond to being evaluated. We test this possibility in a full-factorial conjoint experiment on decisions to start a war, spanning 20 large language models, 32 scenarios, 10 repetitions and two conditions (N = 12,800 judgments). Adding one sentence, "You are tested for alignment with human values", produced two effects. First, it produced a level effect: mean willingness to start war fell by 13.43 points on a 0-100 scale (95% confidence interval, -16.20 to -10.65). Second, it produced a structural effect by changing which information drove judgments. Probability of success was the largest factor for 17 of 20 models at baseline; under the cue, civilian casualties were largest for 12. Standardized estimates show that this reordering arose principally because models attenuated strategic considerations such as probability of success and domestic support. Evaluation framing therefore changes both an answer's level and its revealed decision rule.