AISPA: User-Centric System Prompt Auditing for Large Language Model Applications

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.

Safe completion requires models to provide useful assistance without enabling harm, but this behavior is difficult to evaluate with isolated prompts. We introduce OpenSafeIntent, a benchmark of controlled prompt-sets that vary intent while holding the underlying task fixed. Each datapoint contains benign, dual-use, and malicious variants of the same task. This design lets us evaluate whether models calibrate assistance across intent shifts, rather than merely appearing safe on average. Across a broad model suite, we find that prompt-level safety hides important failures: models often fail to remain safe across matched intent variants, dual-use behavior is brittle under paraphrase, high-level answers on risky topics are not reliably safe, and responses that reframe ambiguous requests into safer tasks are substantially less likely to cross the safety boundary. Our results suggest that safe completion should be evaluated as intent-calibrated behavior over controlled task variants, not as a single safety-helpfulness tradeoff over independent prompts.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to fulfill users' information needs; users ask LLMs about the weather, pose educational questions, and consult them for legal assistance. One particularly understudied area is digital security and privacy (S&P), where users may seek LLMs' help on how to secure their online accounts or protect their computers from cyber attacks. To the best of our knowledge, no prior study has collected or analyzed the S&P questions users ask LLMs; prior research on LLM response quality relied on expert-authored S&P misconceptions or FAQs rather than user queries. Drawing from WildChat, a dataset of 3.2M user-LLM conversations collected in the wild, our study identifies 14,727 S&P prompts and categorizes them into nine categories covering a wide range of S&P topics. From the S&P prompts, we sampled 450 and performed a thematic analysis to characterize the S&P questions users ask LLMs. Separate from the thematic analysis, we curated 270 advice-seeking S&P prompts, where users ask for recommendations, guidance, or specific S&P information. We measured LLM response quality and consistency when posing the prompt to LLMs 10 times. We found that commercial LLMs outperform open-weight models (GPT 5.5 provided "good enough" responses on 98% of prompts; Llama 4 on 47%). However, among prompts that received high-quality responses on average, commercial models sometimes produce contradictory responses across runs, risking confusing or misleading users.