Adversarial Cues in Decision Models Used as Judges: The Role of Request Presentation

An LLM judge deployed inside a reasoning pipeline does not merely measure quality, it decides which answer ships. We show that the cost of that decision depends less on judge accuracy than on the decision rule the judge is embedded in. On frozen candidate pools from four GRPO policies, an unconstrained scalar DeepSeek-R1-7B judge buys almost nothing over answer-level majority vote (+1.0 pp on 500 GSM8K questions, +0.34 EM on 300 HotpotQA questions), and on a frozen-rule 30-question confirmation split it is 10 points worse than majority, a judge that destroys accuracy while scoring candidates confidently. We then subordinate the same judge to Evidence-Locked Derive-Gate-Repair (EL-DGR), a task-adaptive non-compensatory rule under which a judge preference may override evidence-supported consensus only with an extractive evidence certificate, and a repair only when neither alternative is certified and the repair is. With no change to the judge, the candidates, or the budget, EL-DGR reaches 58.2% on GSM8K (vs. 56.8% judge, 55.8% majority, 55.4% first candidate) and 17.33 EM / 25.46 F1 on HotpotQA (vs. 15.67/23.49, 15.33/23.19, 15.33/22.97), improving on first-candidate GRPO by +2.8 pp (exact McNemar p=0.0026) and +2.00 EM (p=0.070, borderline). A decision audit shows why: EL-DGR overturns consensus on only 8 of 30 pilot questions and never converts a correct consensus into an incorrect answer. We also report what did not work: the same seven-channel decomposition used as a step-level gated training reward is null, and corrected channel-drop ablations show no channel is individually necessary (p=1.0 throughout). The practitioner-facing finding is negative about judges and positive about admissibility, bound the judge's blast radius rather than trying to make it accurate.

LLM judges are often asked to extract criteria and evidence before choosing between candidate answers. This workflow assumes that the intermediate record preserves the information needed for a later verdict. For reasoning-capable models, visible field order does not reveal internal decision order, so we test an observable alternative: persist the evidence in one call and make it the exclusive input to the next. Across 24,000 judgments over HelpSteer3, FeedbackQA, and CoVal, we compare standard pairwise judging, structured one-call judging, two-call evidence locking, and three-call pointwise locking with Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT-5. Evidence locking reduces agreement with released human preferences by 4 to 6 percentage points and increases answer-order inconsistency by 8 to 10 points relative to structured one-call judging. Pointwise locking is also harmful, while structured evidence elicitation remains close to standard judging. The result holds for both judges and all three datasets. Persisted evidence can support auditability, but it should not replace the source answers at decision time.

LLM judges, models that score another system's output, can be gamed by the systems they score. Recent work identifies one defence that works: the judge solves the task itself first and commits to that answer, then accepts a candidate only if the two match. We call this commit-first judging, and ask whether shipped software implements it, and what it costs. We audit the default judge configurations of eight widely used evaluation frameworks. Of the 24 configurations in scope, none implement it. Nine implement a variant the literature measures as ineffective, and share one ancestor prompt, traceable through a copied typographical error. In a controlled experiment, an ordinary best-of-N search with no access to correct answers optimises code against one of these configurations, used exactly as documented. On an interval merging task the judge accepted 90 of 96 candidates in one seed and 93 of 96 in the other; every accepted candidate passed every test the search could see and failed a held-out suite it could not. The judge identified the defective line and cited it as grounds for a perfect score. Commit-first judging removed the effect: 0 of 96 in both seeds. On a second task it made matters worse in both seeds: the judge's committed answer was wrong, and in one seed the population converged on it. This is our main finding. Commit-first judging does not remove the anchor that gets gamed, it moves it from the candidate to the judge's own answer, so evaluation is only as good as the judge is at the task. That precondition is cheap to measure in advance, and is task local rather than scale dependent: a smaller judge solved a task the frontier judge failed and resisted gaming where it did not. We also validate our own instruments: five of fifteen claims in our criteria were wrong against verbatim sources, and two held-out checks were unjustified by their specifications.