ADMITBench: A Safety-Governed Reference Framework for Evaluating the Admissibility of Industrial LLM Advisories

LLMs-as-judges are the only way to evaluate safety at scale. Despite their importance, LLM-judges themselves are rarely evaluated beyond human agreement in simple, static benchmarks. We therefore investigate two under-explored but crucial properties of LLMs-as-judges: their susceptibility to relying on in context-information, and their steerability to differing safety definitions, which may not align with their internal safety priors. We evaluate the safety judging abilities of many generalist LLMs and safety-specific judges, and investigate the impact of task demonstrations, novel in-context information, and changing safety definitions. We find that while LLM-judges can learn from new information, they are broadly unlikely to adjust their evaluations if the context or safety definition contradicts their prior.

Large language model (LLM) applications are increasingly expected to satisfy deterministic institutional requirements while relying on probabilistic generative components. This mismatch makes ordinary post-hoc benchmarking insufficient for systems that must be safe, reliable, auditable, and economically useful. This paper contributes an evaluation-protocol extension for operational LLM systems grounded in acceptance-test-driven development, safety engineering, and business-centric validation. The extension translates stakeholder goals into executable behavioral contracts, release gates, monitoring signals, and evidence artifacts before prompt, model, retrieval, or agent changes are accepted. It adapts the red-green-refactor discipline of test-driven development to a red-train-green lifecycle: first define failing acceptance tests for desired behavior, then improve the LLM system through prompt changes, retrieval design, fine-tuning, guardrails, or data augmentation, and finally release only when multidimensional gates are satisfied. The contribution is a governance-oriented metric stack, reference architecture, and empirical protocol for comparing acceptance-test-driven LLM development against prompt-first and benchmark-after workflows.

LLM evaluation and AI safety face a shared measurement problem: benchmark scores, reward-model signals, and reported safety metrics can improve while the latent properties they are meant to represent remain difficult to verify. This paper combines a hybrid survey - a systematic search paired with narrative synthesis and separately tracked grey evidence - with a conceptual framework and a structured ten-model audit. The synthesis spans eight evidence streams: benchmark validity, dynamic evaluation, LLM-as-judge reliability, safety evaluation, jailbreak/refusal robustness, reward hacking, mechanistic interpretability, and governance/auditability, covering 2018-2026 evaluation-safety measurement work. We introduce EvalSafetyGap as an organizing hypothesis for comparing evaluation-side and alignment-side proxy failures under optimization pressure, using Goodhart's Law together with two constructs we develop here - an Instability Decomposition and an Alignment Trilemma - as tools for generating testable comparisons. The audit shows how conclusions shift when capability, behavioral safety, and governance are measured separately. In this sample ($n = 10$), the association between capability and sustained adversarial robustness is statistically indeterminate using the displayed Table 3 inputs (Pearson $r = +0.232$, $p = 0.520$), and the apparent open-closed safety gap is modest, driven mainly by governance and disclosure rather than behavioral robustness, and sensitive to how a single borderline model is classified; attempt-budget results are protocol dependent. Because the public evidence uses heterogeneous protocols, the audit is diagnostic rather than rank-generating. The contribution is a shared vocabulary and evidence map to support dynamic evaluation, transparent source reporting, multi-attempt safety measurement, and auditable alignment practice.