Agreement Is Not Quality: Blind Expert Verification of Human and LLM Qualitative Coding When Human Consensus Is Not Ground Truth

The utility of AI in multi-coder qualitative coding has been widely discussed, yet little empirical evidence exists to delineate the contexts in which it performs reliably. We address this gap by quantifying the effectiveness of multi-agent LLM coding across varied qualitative datasets, revealing key contextual and structural factors that mediate coding outcomes. We developed a literature-informed baseline pipeline that enables AI agents to independently code, debate, and reconcile disagreements. Results revealed that coding accuracy depends on factors such as codebook length, qualitative data similarity, and agent disagreement. Notably, intense and unresolved debates between agents led to higher accuracy. Our analysis showed that while LLMs emulate many human discussion behaviors, they lack adaptive responsiveness to context. From these findings, we offer design recommendations for building automated coding systems. Our open-source AI discussion dataset and methodological framework lay the groundwork for advancing the design of AI-mediated automated thematic analysis.

Qualitative researchers increasingly encounter interaction corpora whose scale exceeds what manual coding alone can address, and large language models (LLMs) are frequently proposed as analytic assistants. The open questions are not whether LLMs can participate in qualitative analysis but to what extent, in what phases, and under what safeguards. This article provides a detailed procedural account of a multi-phase human-LLM collaborative pipeline that adapted open, axial, and selective coding to develop a hierarchical codebook from 45,000 messages exchanged between K-12 educators and a generative AI platform. Across three phases, LLMs generated candidate labels and structured annotations at scale, while human researchers retained conceptual authority over category definitions, merging decisions, and interpretive frameworks. The resulting instrument was then tested through systematic human coding, in which three trained coders with educational domain expertise applied the codebook to an independent sample of 2,560 messages, established reliability through iterative calibration using set-valued agreement measures appropriate for multi-label annotation, and extended the instrument with five codes that the LLM-assisted phases had not surfaced. The final codebook comprises 72 items within 19 categories and six domains. We reflect on the methodological decisions the pipeline required, including the choice of a conversational unit of analysis, the treatment of the LLM as a labeling instrument rather than an interpretive agent, the measurement of intercoder agreement under multi-label coding, and the conditions under which human domain expertise remained decisive. The account is offered as an auditable template for qualitative researchers considering LLM assistance in codebook development while preserving human interpretive authority.

Data from affected populations are crucial for informing humanitarian response, but their value depends on timely and consistent interpretation of nuanced accounts of need. Humanitarian organizations often lack the staff, time, and specialist expertise required to analyze this information at scale. Large language models (LLMs) may expand this capacity, but their reliability for coding qualitative humanitarian data has not been directly established. This benchmark study compares 46 LLMs to a human Gold Standard using 150 high-fidelity synthetic humanitarian transcripts. Evaluation combined inter-rater reliability testing with Krippendorff's alpha, discrepancy analysis distinguishing correct, near-correct, and incorrect codes, and qualitative assessment across humanitarian-specific criteria including discrimination, complex needs hierarchies, and non-standard communication styles. The authors find that multiple LLMs can perform deductive coding at reliability levels comparable to experienced human coders, especially when structured prompts and reasoning-enabled configurations are used. At the same time, aggregate reliability metrics alone are insufficient for deployment decisions. Models varied in recognizing needs expressed indirectly, needs outside predefined categories, and protection-relevant concerns such as physical safety and discrimination. These findings suggest that LLMs can materially expand humanitarian analytical capacity, but not as substitutes for human judgment. Appropriate use requires structured codebooks, reasoning-enabled models, attention to theme-specific performance, and tiered oversight focused on categories where miscoding would have the greatest programmatic consequences. For sensitive humanitarian data, open-weights models deployed on self-hosted infrastructure may offer a viable path for combining analytical scalability with stronger data governance.