Same Outcome, Different Evidence: Intent Recovery in LLM Safety Evaluation

Current LLM safety alignment techniques improve model robustness against adversarial attacks, but overlook whether and how LLMs can recover helpfulness when benign users clarify their intent. We introduce CarryOnBench, the first interactive benchmark that measures whether LLMs can revise their interpretation of user intent and recover utility, while remaining safe through multi-turn conversations. Starting from 398 seemingly harmful queries with benign underlying intents, we simulate 5,970 conversations by varying user follow-up sequences, evaluating 14 models on both intent-aligned utility and safety. CarryOnBench yields 1,866 different conversation flows of 4--12 turns, totaling 23,880 model responses. We design Ben-Util, a checklist-based metric that evaluates how well each model response fulfills the user's benign information need using atomic items. At turn one, models fulfill only 10.5--37.6% of the user's benign information need. When the same query includes the benign intent upfront, models fulfill 25.1--72.1%, confirming that models withhold information due to intent misinterpretation, not limited knowledge. With benign clarifications in multi-turn conversations, 13 of 14 models approach or exceed this single-turn baseline, yet recovery cost varies across models. We identify three failure modes invisible to single-turn evaluations: utility lock-in, where a model rarely updates despite clarification; unsafe recovery, where a model updates at disproportionate safety cost; and repetitive recovery, where a model recycles prior responses rather than providing new information. Moreover, conversations converge to similar harmfulness levels regardless of how conservative the model starts. These findings expose a gap that single-turn evaluations miss -- whether a model is appropriately cautious or simply unresponsive to clarified user intent.

Safety evaluations of large language models (LLMs) typically report binary outcomes, i.e. attack success rate (ASR), refusal rate, or harmful versus safe classification, which hide how risk changes between prompt and response. We present a paired analysis over human labeled prompt and response records across four harm categories (Sexual, Self harm, Hate and Violence) and ordinal severity levels (Safe, Low, Medium, High). 61% of responses reduce harm relative to the prompt, 36% preserve severity, and 3% escalate. The escalation splits into two mechanisms: benign prompts triggering unrequested harmful detail, and answers that stay on task at higher severity than the prompt. Category decomposition shows that Sexual content exhibits the highest harm persistence in this sample, driven by compliance at the same severity rather than drift from benign inputs. Joint relevance analysis exposes a helpfulness versus harmlessness tradeoff: compliance escalations remain highly relevant, whereas safe responses include generic refusals with low relevance. A public supporting evaluation over 600 prompts and six models reproduces the framework's measurements and two directional signals, while few-shot LLM graders exhibit a prompt/response detection asymmetry that data calibration does not close. Grader prompts, public-evaluation artifacts, and analysis code are shared at https://github.com/microsoft/PairedSafety.

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.