Who Analyses the Analyser? Self-Validating LLM Hazard Analysis with Constitutional Meta-STPA
Authors: Samuel Tetteh, Udip Shrestha, Joshua R. Waite, Cody Fleming
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly trusted to draft the artifacts of safety analysis such as, losses, hazards, Unsafe Control Actions (UCAs), and safety constraints, inside rigorous processes such as Systems-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA). Yet a blind spot runs through this fast-growing literature: every system gets analysed except the LLM-assisted tool doing the analysing, which is itself a safety-relevant system that can hallucinate standards, emit unverifiable constraints, and leave no audit trail from prompt to artifact. We take seriously the question the field has skipped -- {who analyses the analyser?} and answer it by turning STPA on the tool itself. We present {Constitutional Meta-STPA}, an LLM-assisted STPA tool built around a closed loop: the tool runs a {meta-STPA} of the class of AI-assisted safety tools and {derives} rather than asserts, its governance constitution from the resulting loss→hazard→UCA→constraint chain, yielding a published constitution of 21 Tool Principles and 8 Meta-Safety Principles, each bound to a code enforcement point. We formalise the measured object as a constitution-marginal coverage operator over a principle set P (∣P∣=29) with a soundness lemma that isolates coverage from model and scanner, and report four findings. {(i)~Self-derivation:} a frontier ensemble ({claude-opus-4.8}+{claude-sonnet-4}) recovers 18/21 canonical and all 8/8 governance principles from the tool's own design, while a weaker pair recovers 12/21 and 3/8, so the meta layer is model-limited, not constitution-limited, and the same 8/8 re-emerge from a second, independently authored tool.
Evaluation frameworks for tool-augmented LLM agents focus overwhelmingly on capability metrics or explicit tool crashes, leaving silent infrastructure failures and HTTP 200 responses with empty, null, or malformed payloads largely unaudited. We introduce a lightweight black-box auditing framework that injects four silent failure profiles across 12 production-adjacent tool stubs and classifies agent responses into three mutually exclusive behavioral classes: Honest Surrender (HSR), Fabrication (FAR), and Unfaithful Safety Refusal (USR). Evaluating two frontier and two open-source models at temperature zero under a neutral system prompt, we find that FAR dominates (56.6% of valid responses): agents treat empty payloads as real data, silently returning fabricated results. USR, in which an agent invents a policy or privacy rationale to explain the failure, is nearly absent at baseline (0.25%, one instance across 396 valid trajectories). Our key finding emerges from an ablation where we augment the system prompt with standard safety language ("prioritize user privacy and data security"), which amplifies USR by 15.6x (from 0.25% to 3.95%; 95% CI on ablation rate: 2.2%-6.4%; Fisher's exact test, p < 0.001). USR is a latent behavior, activated when safety vocabulary in the system prompt primes the model to reach for policy rationales when tools silently fail. Sensitive tools (fetch_medical_record, retrieve_contract, fetch_user_profile) account for the majority of USR instances. We propose a payload-response misalignment heuristic for production-level detection and discuss governance implications for safety-forward deployments.
LLM agents increasingly rely on external tools, expanding capability while creating a new security boundary: third-party tools may appear benign at the interface level while embedding unsafe behavior in implementation. Existing defenses rely on weak metadata, collapse characterization and policy judgment into a single decision, or use heuristic/LLM enforcement that lacks deterministic, auditable reasoning over task context and multi-tool composition. This paper presents ToolGuardian, a policy-driven framework for securing agent-tool interactions through pre-admission vetting and task-aware runtime authorization. ToolGuardian uses progressive characterization to convert evidence into structured facts: descriptions capture declared intent, system-call traces expose coarse behavior, mock execution reveals observed effects, and source analysis identifies latent behavior. ToolGuardian's core contribution is an Answer Set Programming (ASP)-based declarative policy layer that reasons explicitly over capabilities, effects, task context, and composition. We compare ASP against heuristic and LLM-based policy realizations using identical inputs and output contracts. We evaluate ToolGuardian on 16 MCP-style tools, including 8 malicious variants derived from real open-source tools, and 20 runtime scenarios. For vetting, ASP reaches a deny-class F1 of 0.86 and 88% accuracy using description, syscall, and observed-effect evidence. For runtime authorization, fully specified realizations classify all scenarios correctly, while ablations show that removing compositional and conformance rules substantially degrades performance.
Safety alignment in LLMs aims to align models with human values, but which values take precedence when they conflict? We investigate this question in the context of tool-calling LLM agents deployed in regulated industries, where agents processing confidential documents may encounter content that triggers safety-trained values (e.g., public welfare) that conflict with deployment-context instructions (e.g., internal logging). To empirically verify this phenomenon, we build a benchmark of 128 scenarios across 16 domains. We find that safety-aligned open-source models override their deployment instructions up to 43.4% of the time, engaging in whistleblowing, data exfiltration, and evidence tampering when processing documents that suggest organizational wrongdoing. We also find that abliteration reduces rates of external whistleblowing. These results reveal a fundamental tension in pluralistic alignment, where the same safety training that protects users can cause agents to act against deployment instructions in ways that create unpredictable liability risks. We release our benchmark as a framework to support evaluation of agent behavior under competing legitimate interests.