Annotation pipelines in Natural Language Processing (NLP) commonly assume a single latent ground truth per instance and resolve disagreement through label aggregation. Perspectivist approaches challenge this view by treating disagreement as potentially informative rather than erroneous. We present a large-scale analysis of graded health-literacy annotations from 6,323 open-ended COVID-19 responses collected in Ecuador and Peru. Each response was independently labeled by multiple annotators using proportional correctness scores, reflecting the degree to which responses align with normative public-health guidelines, allowing us to analyze the full distribution of judgments rather than aggregated labels. Variance decomposition shows that question-level conceptual difficulty accounts for substantially more variance than annotator identity, indicating that disagreement is structured by the task itself rather than driven by individual raters. Agreement-stratified analyses further reveal that key social-scientific effects, including country, education, and urban-rural differences, vary in magnitude and in some cases reverse direction across levels of inter-annotator agreement. These findings suggest that graded health-literacy evaluation contains both epistemically stable and unstable components, and that aggregating across them can obscure important inferential differences. We therefore argue that strong perspectivist modeling is not only conceptually justified but statistically necessary for valid inference in graded interpretive tasks.
It is increasingly recognized that human annotators do not always agree, and such disagreement is inherent in many annotation tasks. However, not all instances in a given task elicit the same degree of opinion divergence. In this paper, we investigate annotation variation patterns in graded human ratings for inappropriate languages, including offensive language, hate speech, and toxic language perception. We examine whether the degree of annotation disagreement can be predicted from textual features. We further propose the Opposition Index, a metric that quantifies perspective opposition among annotators on a given item, and investigate the predictability of instances with potentially opposing human opinions. Our results show a moderate positive correlation between estimated and observed annotation variance. We find that two approaches achieve comparable performance in variance prediction: directly predicting the variance value and estimating it from predicted annotation distributions. Our results on opposition perspective prediction show that items with high opposition index values are more difficult to predict and are often underestimated by models.
Subjective NLP datasets typically aggregate annotator judgments into a single gold label, making it difficult to diagnose whether disagreement reflects unclear criteria, collapsed distinctions, or legitimate plurality. We propose a \emph{schema-level diagnostic} for auditing expert-designed annotation schemas \emph{prior to} gold-label commitment, using only multi-annotator criterion judgments. The diagnostic separates two failure modes: unstable criteria with hard-to-operationalize boundaries, and systematic overlap that blurs the boundaries between mutually exclusive categories. Applied to persuasive value extraction in commercial documents, we find that disagreement is not diffuse: instability concentrates in a few criteria, while nearly half of covered sentences activate multiple categories. These signals align with where domain experts disagree, yielding an evidence-based audit for tightening guidelines, revising category structure, or reconsidering the annotation paradigm.
Federal agencies are deploying large language models (LLMs) to categorize public comment corpora, where the model's organization of the record shapes what policymakers see and which arguments register. Standard evaluation, anchored on stance accuracy against a small validated set, cannot detect when different models produce materially different categorizations of the same public input. We propose an Interpretive Audit Pipeline that treats multi-model disagreement as diagnostic of interpretive complexity and directs human review toward genuinely ambiguous public input. Analyzing 1,260 public comments on a federal USDA docket across four LLMs, we find that inter-model thematic divergence exceeds within-model prompt variation, and that an expert rubric suppresses deep interpretive disagreement without resolving it. In a two-stage labeling study on a stratified 40-comment subsample, four LLMs and a human annotator labeled independently and then revised after seeing the others' labels. Revision behavior varied across labelers, and the human annotator's revisions frequently introduced framings absent from the ensemble's collective output. We argue disagreement-based evaluation is a necessary complement to accuracy metrics for LLM-assisted interpretive coding.