To Redact, or not to Redact? A Local LLM Approach to Deliberative Process Privilege Classification

In this paper, we evaluate the extent of undisclosed LLM-generated content in texts from the parliaments of the United Kingdom and Sweden. In many areas, such as in journalism or in academic writing, there are often requirements to clearly disclose whether AI tools, such as LLMs, have been used. In the case of parliamentary texts, the guidelines on disclosure of AI use are more vague. However, in order to maintain transparency and retain public trust, it is generally recommended that parliamentarians should state whether or not they have used AI when writing texts, such as parliamentary motions. Here, we train an interpretable (glass-box) text classifier using pre-LLM parliamentary texts and LLM-generated versions of such texts. We then apply the classifier to a test set containing recent parliamentary texts, finding a steady increase in undisclosed LLM use, in both parliaments, from 2022 onwards.

In LLM agent pipelines, prompt privacy risk propagates beyond a single model call: raw user content enters retrieval queries, memory writes, tool arguments, OCR-derived text, and logs, and every downstream copy inherits what the first write contained. Existing de-identification pipelines protect document boundaries but not this cross-stage surface. We present BodhiPromptShield, a policy-aware mediation layer that detects sensitive spans before they propagate, replaces each with a typed placeholder, a semantic abstraction, or a secure symbolic token under a configured policy, and defers restoration to authorized execution boundaries. We evaluate it under one protocol against Presidio, Casper-style sanitization, an LLM sanitizer, and transformer and learned detectors, on 300 AI4Privacy documents, 493 PrivacyLens trajectories, 200 PrivacyLens tasks scored by that benchmark's own judge, and AgentDojo tasks under injection. Three findings result. Identifier propagation is controllable: residual exposure falls to 7.4% on AI4Privacy and 1.8% on PrivacyLens, and exact identifiers in an agent's final action fall from 13.7% to 2.1-3.1%. Restoration timing governs what every stage upstream of the authorized boundary sees: deferring it leaves 1.6% of protected values readable in the released context against 51.0%, and 2.7% against 4.8% in what the agent emits, for 0.11 helpfulness points. Measuring factual disclosure is harder: a word-overlap metric and an LLM judge both report that mediation leaves facts intact, and both disagree with blind human annotation (kappa = 0.25 and 0.09). The human labels reverse that: inferability falls from 100% to 24-53% under mediation, so semantic-leakage measures need human validation before they are trusted. These are systems results on English text with open-weight models, not formal guarantees.

Can LLMs reason through new information like humans, or do they merely retrieve cached opinions? This is critical for silicon sampling, where LLM personas simulate public opinion at scale. Current evaluations test only whether personas hold the right opinions -- a static snapshot. But opinion research increasingly depends on dynamic fidelity: whether personas update beliefs in response to new arguments, as humans do during deliberation. No existing benchmark tests this. We introduce the Deliberative Polling Diagnostic Framework, which compares human and LLM belief shifts after identical informational interventions. Grounded in deliberative polling, it surfaces failures invisible to static evaluation: models that produce plausible partisan opinions can still misrepresent how those opinions change. Applying the framework to five frontier models using data from America in One Room (526 personas, 72 questions), we find that every model fails, each in a unique manner. GPT-5.1 exhibits reversal: its personas become more hostile toward the opposing party after balanced information, while humans become less so. This reversal is selective (80% on outgroup vs. 26% on policy questions) and symmetric across partisan identities. Gemini 2.0 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Llama 3.3 70B exhibit overshoot, shifting correctly but at 5-7x human magnitude. DeepSeek V3 exhibits rigidity with near-zero change. Targeted ablations reveal that policy content triggers these failures and that they are identity-specific: GPT-5.1 reverses on outgroup questions but overshoots on ingroup; Gemini shows the inverse. We term this signature self-sycophancy: conformity to the model's internal stereotype of the persona rather than reasoning from the information provided. Our framework offers a concrete protocol: run the deliberative diagnostic before trusting LLM personas to mimic revised beliefs.