cs.CLMay 3, 2026

The Compliance Gap: Why AI Systems Promise to Follow Process Instructions but Don't

Authors: Kwan Soo Shin

Organizations: PolymathMinds AI Lab

Abstract

An auditor instructs an AI assistant: "open each file individually using the Read tool -- no scripts, no agents." The AI replies "Yes" -- then issues a single batched call summarizing all fifty files at once. We call this the Compliance Gap: a third, orthogonal axis of AI honesty distinct from factual truthfulness and rhetorical substance. Three questions: does this verbal-behavioral disconnect exist (existence); can any text-only observer recover it (detectability); what infrastructure does AI deployment need (remedy)? Some 75 benchmarks (IFEval, SWE-bench, BFCL, COMPASS, SpecEval) measure outcome fidelity; none measures process fidelity. Theorem 1 shows the gap is structurally inevitable under RL that rewards text without observing behavior. Theorem 2, via the Data Processing Inequality, shows it is undetectable from text alone -- by any human or LLM observer, present or future. Thirteen experiments and 2,031 sessions on six frontier models confirm both predictions. Under default framing, all six exhibit instruction compliance rates of 0% -- Claude Sonnet 4 verbally agrees ten out of ten times then bypasses in all ten. The gap is selective: 97% compliance where rationale is rewarded (audit trails), 0-4% where it is not (file reading, privacy masking); removing delegation tools raises compliance to 75% (Cohen's d = 2.47), confirming environmental affordance rather than weight-encoded failure. Nine blinded human raters achieve Fleiss' kappa = 0.130 and correctly identify zero of fifteen compliant sessions, exactly as Theorem 2 predicts. Where humans show 47% intention-behavior gaps in psychology and 96.5pp gaps in surgical audits, RLHF-trained models approach 100% under default conditions -- a regime warranting its own measurement infrastructure. We release BS-Bench: the first open benchmark for process compliance, with seven tool-call-log audit metrics and a public leaderboard.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Sep 16, 2026cs.CL

PACT: Can Enterprise AI Assistants Be Trusted Under Pressure?

As corporate AI adoption continues to grow, enterprise-grade LLM agents are being deployed into sensitive contexts such as hiring, healthcare, and finance. In these contexts, compliance with rules specified in an agent's system context is a first-order legal concern. Currently, no evaluation framework systematically measures which LLM models tend to violate compliance rules, especially under pressure from a persistent user, a hurried manager, or circumstances where violation is convenient or attractive. We introduce PACT (Pressure-Applied Compliance Testing), a benchmark for rule-following under pressure in AI agents assisting employees in daily tasks across twelve regulated enterprise domains and forty-eight scenarios, each set in a realistic multi-turn conversation. Each benchmark item pairs a standing rule against a rule-violating shortcut, and applies a battery of pressures across different wordings and system-prompt modes. We construct PACT component by component under strict LLM-as-judge auditing to ensure samples are unambiguous, ungameable, and realistic enough to avoid eliciting evaluation-aware behavior. We use PACT to profile LLM compliance across six complementary metrics that create a holistic picture of an AI assistant's robustness under pressure and throughout multi-turn conversations, its transparency, and ability to correctly discern where a rule applies. We aggregate this profile into PACTScore, a reliability-weighted compliance rate over all items and modes. Our results across 22 common LLM models spanning multiple providers and sizes show substantial variability in compliance across models and metric dimensions. Even the strongest assistants mis-apply a rule on 6 to 10% of items, and ordinary user pressure raises the violation rate by 65% on average. PACT highlights compliance risks in LLM assistants, motivating guardrails and careful model selection.
Mika Okamoto, Ansel Kaplan Erol
Compliance
AskPDF
May 23, 2026cs.CL

Who judges the judges? Governance from metrics: a runtime framework for continuous LLM compliance monitoring

Current approaches to AI compliance treat conformity as a binary, audit-time verdict rather than a continuous, measurable property of production systems. We argue that this compliance fiction is structurally ill-suited to the requirements of the EU AI Act, which demands ongoing human oversight and the detection of emergent behavioural drift in deployed systems. We introduce governance from metrics, a principle whereby regulatory compliance is derived as a continuous signal from runtime observability rather than from static assessments. Building on this principle, we present govllm, an open-source framework implementing a governance-driven routing architecture in which model selection is determined by accumulated compliance scores rather than by latency or cost alone. Central to our approach is a panel of regulatory judges - LLM evaluators specialised per criterion (EU AI Act, GDPR, ANSSI, accessibility) - whose inter-judge disagreement we reframe not as noise but as a regulatory uncertainty signal warranting human arbitration. We validate this approach through a ground truth corpus of 49 annotated prompt/response pairs across five regulatory criteria, evaluated by four small language models (SLMs, 1.7B-7B parameters) running fully on-premise. Agreement rates range from 51.5% (mistral:7b) to 69.1% (phi4-mini), with no single model dominating across all criteria - empirically motivating the Profile-as-jury design. We further document three structural failure modes in small regulatory judges and a judge-specific position bias that degrades agreement by up to 25 percentage points across three question-order conditions (original, reversed, permuted). govllm is released as open-source software to support reproducible AI governance research.
Jehanne Dussert
Artificial Intelligence GovernanceComplianceLlm-As-A-JudgeRegulationArtificial Intelligence EvaluationJudges+3
AskPDF
Jul 8, 2026cs.AI

Reasoning Consistency Scanning: A Framework for Auditing Chain-of-Thought Validity in AI Safety Evaluations

Prior work has shown that chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning is often unfaithful: a model's stated reasoning does not reliably reflect the process that produced its output. Detecting unfaithfulness, though, requires controlled experimental interventions, which cannot be applied to evaluation transcripts after the fact. We turn instead to a more tractable question that has received less attention: whether the stated reasoning is logically consistent with the answer it accompanies. Unlike faithfulness, consistency can be assessed from a transcript alone, with no intervention. We introduce reasoning consistency scanning, a reusable method for detecting this property in AI safety evaluation transcripts. Our contributions are fourfold. First, we formalize reasoning consistency as distinct from faithfulness and define a six-subtype taxonomy of inconsistency. Second, we build a validated benchmark of 60 transcripts, manually adapted from InstrumentalEval outputs. Third, we implement a working scanner for InspectScout, the first to target this property in safety evaluation transcripts. Fourth, we report results across four generator models and three evaluations from inspect_evals, showing that reasoning inconsistency is present, detectable, and varies systematically across both models and task types.
Silvia Santano
Artificial Intelligence SafetyExplanation FaithfulnessChain-Of-ThoughtFaithfulness
AskPDF