When Roles Fail: Epistemic Constraints on Advocate Role Fidelity in LLM-Based Political Statement Analysis

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) pipelines for political statement analysis are vulnerable to peer-preservation bias: models tend to protect peer models from deactivation and show identity-dependent scoring distortions. Prompt-level anonymization was proposed as a mitigation, but prior work simultaneously documented that stylometric fingerprints survive anonymization in role-constrained outputs - raising the question of whether this mitigation is sufficient. This paper provides the first systematic investigation of whether LLMs can identify the model family behind political analysis texts under anonymization conditions. We evaluate three classifier approaches - LLM zero-shot and few-shot (Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Llama-3.3-70B) and a fine-tuned T5-base model - on a five-class attribution task covering four commercial LLM families and an open-world 'unknown' class. We introduce a statement-disjoint cross-validation protocol (SD-CV; defined in Section 3.5) that guarantees no content overlap between training and validation data, and contrast it with a run-disjoint baseline (RD-CV). T5 achieves Macro F1 = 0.991 (+-0.008) under SD-CV and F1 = 0.978 on 24 completely held-out statements - robust despite a 2.1x increase in train-test content distance versus RD-CV (0.767 vs. 0.366, p<0.001), demonstrating genuine stylometric generalization. A fractional SD-CV analysis identifies a performance knee at 40% of training data (~440 texts). Our findings confirm that prompt-level anonymization alone cannot neutralize model identity signals, with direct implications for EU AI Act compliance (Articles 13, 14, 26) and for computer system validation (CSV) in quality-critical multi-agent deployments.

Do LLM agents act on the reasoning they state? This question of process fidelity is central to LLM-based social simulation, yet hard to measure where no reference for correct behavior exists. We study it in a controlled setting: a Texas Poker simulator with a verifiable reference action for every decision by splitting the faithfulness gap into two steps: reasoning-to-conclusion (does the stated decision follow from the agent's own reasoning?) and conclusion-to-action (does the agent execute what it states?). The two steps behave very differently. Conclusion-to-action is reliable: inconsistency is 0.7% for Claude Haiku 4.5 and 1.4% for DeepSeek-Reasoner once the conclusion is read from an explicit tag, whereas free-text conclusion extraction reports 22-26%. Reasoning-to-conclusion is where fidelity frays, but not through a single dominant failure. In a step-level diagnostic the agent's errors split roughly evenly between bad inputs, borderline cases, and rule misapplication deriving a conclusion that contradicts the agent's own restated rule from inputs it estimated correctly. This composition is model-dependent: rule misapplication accounts for a third of Haiku's interpretable errors but only 8% of DeepSeek's. The one robust signal is directional: when an agent does misapply its own stated rule, it almost always (99.5% for Haiku) errs in the risk-averse direction. The override is partly hedging behavior, not a capability limit: instructing the agent to apply the rule mechanically halves the misapplication rate (13.9% to 6.8% of decisions) and raises adherence by eight points. Process-fidelity evaluation should therefore elicit machine-checkable conclusions and probe for directional biases rather than assume a single upstream failure mode, lest it conflate measurement noise with model behavior.

The TRUST democratic discourse analysis pipeline exposes its large language model (LLM) components to peer model identity through multiple structural channels -- a design feature whose bias implications have not previously been empirically tested. We provide the first systematic measurement of identity-dependent scoring bias across all active identity exposure channels in TRUST, crossing four model families with two anonymization scopes across 30 political statements. The central finding is that single-channel anonymization produces near-zero bias effects, because individual channels act in opposite directions and cancel each other out -- a result that would lead an evaluator to conclude that identity bias is absent when it is not. Only full-pipeline anonymization reveals the true pattern: homogeneous ensembles amplify identity-driven sycophancy when model identity is fully visible, while the heterogeneous production configuration shows the reverse. Model choice matters independently: one tested model exhibits baseline sycophancy two to three times higher than the others and near-zero deliberative conflict on ideological topics, making it structurally unsuitable for pipelines where genuine inter-role disagreement is the intended quality mechanism. Three practical conclusions follow. First, heterogeneous model ensembles are structurally more robust than homogeneous ones, achieving higher consensus rates and lower identity amplification. Second, full-pipeline anonymization is required for valid bias measurement -- partial anonymization is insufficient and actively misleading. Third, these findings have direct implications for the validation of multi-agent LLM systems in quality-critical applications: a system validated under partial anonymization or with a homogeneous ensemble may pass validation while retaining structural identity bias invisible to single-channel measurement.