[Submitted on 23 Sep 2026]
Title:Persuaded, Not Informed: Incentive-Misaligned Witnesses Defeat In-Context Grounding
View a PDF of the paper titled Persuaded, Not Informed: Incentive-Misaligned Witnesses Defeat In-Context Grounding, by Rahul Balakavi
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Language-model agents increasingly answer questions over customer-relationship management (CRM) records, such as whether to qualify a sales lead. We identify a failure mode not addressed by a stronger model: when the context contains an assertion by a party with an incentive toward optimism - here the sales representative, a witness recorded in the CRM - the model treats the assertion as evidence and clears deals the company's own records deem unacceptable. Across 100 lead-qualification tasks from CRMArena-Pro, the representative asserts an acceptable timeline in every call and an acceptable budget in 76; on the 31 tasks where such an assertion contradicts the price list and installation policy, a model reading only the transcript clears the deal in 29 of 31 cases. The signature is consistent across seven models from four providers (misled on 87-97%); scale and explicit reasoning confer no resistance. Only 3 of 35 genuine failures involve no assertion: the failure is persuasion, not missing information. We contribute a diagnostic method rather than an architecture: (i) a bucket analysis that separates persuasion from information gaps, (ii) a same-information control showing that supplying the records to the model lowers strict accuracy from 41 to 18 while raising recall - precision collapses - and (iii) a compute-step control that holds extraction fixed and varies only who computes Budget and Timeline. The margin ranges from 42 points on an inexpensive model to 2-5 points on models that already compute correctly; on the strongest models the arms are within confidence intervals, so the pattern is a consistent direction and a soundness property, not a proved performance floor. We pre-specify a generalization test that returns a negative result, characterize the precondition (a policy exactly specified in the inputs), and release all evaluation artifacts.
Comments: 9 pages, 4 figures, IEEE conference format. Ancillary files contain the evaluation harness, pre-specifications, and per-run result files
Subjects:
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
ACM classes: I.2.7; H.3.3
Cite as: arXiv:2609.28854 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.28854v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.28854
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: Manikanta Venkata Rahul Balakavi [view email] [v1] Wed, 23 Sep 2026 23:52:24 UTC (133 KB)
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
View a PDF of the paper titled Persuaded, Not Informed: Incentive-Misaligned Witnesses Defeat In-Context Grounding, by Rahul Balakavi
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
TeX Source
view license
Ancillary-file links:
Ancillary files (details):
CONTROLS.md
README.md
accuracy_sweep.json
anthropic_acc.json
compute_control_claude-fable-5-1.json
compute_control_claude-sonnet-5.json
compute_control_claude-sonnet-5_run1.json
compute_control_claude-sonnet-5_run2.json
compute_control_gpt-4o-mini.json
compute_control_gpt-5.6-sol.json
compute_control_gpt-5_seed1.json
compute_control_gpt-5_seed2.json
compute_control_kimi-k2.6.json
compute_control_o3-mini_seed1.json
compute_control_o3-mini_seed2.json
compute_control_qwen3.8-max.json
err_budget.py
err_budget_rows.json
gullibility_rows.json
gullibility_sweep.json
gullibility_sweep_providers.json
gullibility_sweep_v5.json
invalid_config_OUTCOME.md
invalid_config_preregistration.json
knowledge_qa_OUTCOME.md
knowledge_qa_preregistration.json
memory_answerable_classification.json
ov_accuracy_sweep.py
ov_anthropic_acc.py
ov_compute_control.py
ov_config_eval.py
ov_gullibility.py
ov_gullibility_sweep.py
ov_kqa_eval.py
ov_lead_eval.py
ov_lead_hc.py
ov_provider_sweep.py
ov_provider_sweep_v5.py
ov_rag_extract_code.py
ov_rag_read.py
rag_baseline.py
rag_extract_code.json
rag_extract_code_tonly.json
rag_read.json
split.json
table_8020.json
(41 additional files not shown)
Current browse context:
cs.CL
new | recent | 2026-09
Change to browse by:
cs cs.AI
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Loading...
Data provided by:
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
Author
Venue
Institution
Topic
About arXivLabs
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)