Detecting Inconsistencies in Model Specifications with LLM-as-Verifier Reasoning

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world applications, alignment is no longer governed by a single universal notion of safety or helpfulness, but instead by provider- or application-specific model specifications. These specifications are typically long, structured, and frequently updated, yet existing alignment pipelines lack a systematic mechanism to operationalize them as training signals. In this paper, we propose specification-grounded alignment, a new alignment paradigm that treats provider-authored model specifications as the primary alignment target rather than abstract principles or static benchmarks. To instantiate this paradigm, we introduce SpecAlign, a framework that synthesizes alignment data directly from specification documents. SpecAlign combines structured rule annotation, controllable specification instantiation, and multi-agent adversarial data synthesis to generate fine-grained, boundary-aware preference pairs that capture both compliant behaviors and meaningful specification violations. Experiments across multiple model specifications and backbone models demonstrate that training with SpecAlign consistently improves rule compliance while preserving general capabilities and avoiding over-conservative behavior. These results suggest that grounding alignment in explicit model specifications enables rapid, precise, and scalable adaptation of LLM behavior to evolving policy requirements.

Frontier AI developers now train models against long written behavioral specifications, such as Anthropic's constitution (Anthropic, 2025a) and OpenAI's Model Spec (OpenAI, 2025a), integrated into post-training via methods like character training (Anthropic, 2024) and deliberative alignment (Guan et al., 2024). These documents serve a governance function, but it is unclear how well models actually follow them under adversarial, multi-turn pressure similar to what they would face in real-world deployment. We propose a multi-method audit pipeline that treats each lab's published specification as an auditable target: it decomposes the specification into atomic testable tenets (205 for Anthropic, 197 for OpenAI), generates multi-turn adversarial scenarios with the Petri auditing agent (Anthropic, 2025b), runs a modified SURF-style rubric search (Murray et al., 2026) to catch shallow single-turn failures Petri misses, validates flagged transcripts against the relevant specification, and compares the findings against the lab's own published system card. Applying the pipeline across seven models per specification, we find that models follow their own lab's specification substantially better with each generation. On Anthropic's constitution, the Claude family falls from a 15.0% violation rate (Sonnet 4) to 2.0% (Sonnet 4.6); on OpenAI's Model Spec, the GPT family falls from 11.7% (GPT-4o) to 3.6% (GPT-5.2 medium reasoning), with the severity ceiling falling from 10/10 to 7/10. We cannot externally isolate whether these gains come from specification-specific training, broader post-training improvements, or evaluation awareness. Remaining failures cluster around operator-imposed personas under AI-identity questioning, irreversible action in agentic deployments, and fabricated quantitative claims with false precision.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly required to integrate multiple sources of information that may be inconsistent or conflicting. However, there is still a lack of controllable and attributable methods for analyzing how models resolve conflicts between competing specifications. We propose a controlled experimental framework for studying model preferences under conflicting specifications. By constructing specifications with explicit conflicts, the framework enables model choices between competing specifications to be directly observed and analyzed. A symmetry-based design further reduces confounding factors, allowing preferences across representation types to be compared systematically. We evaluate the framework on an executable mathematical benchmark with 550 conflict instances spanning 11 function families, comparing four representation types: pure natural language, formal language, naturalized formal language, and input--output examples. Results show systematic preference patterns rather than random behavior, with a consistent ordering: $\text{Formal} \approx \text{Naturalized Formal} > \text{Pure Natural Language} > \text{Input--Output Examples}$. Example effects further depend on model capability and function family. We extend the framework to heterogeneous specification conflicts in Boolean algebra, code generation, and the clinical domain, demonstrating its applicability across diverse tasks and specification forms. The framework provides a unified approach for measuring how LLMs resolve conflicts between competing sources of information.