{"resourceId":"arxiv-beyond-accuracy-ai-assurance-public-services-gpt4o-20261104","versions":[{"version":"external-60b6933f93abb015c655536e990398d77275efe9b424419016fe98f412227395","resource":{"id":"arxiv-beyond-accuracy-ai-assurance-public-services-gpt4o-20261104","title":"Study: eight GPT-4o setups classifying 1,200 parliamentary questions scored 68-70% accuracy, yet 24.3% of items changed labels; review flags ranged 0.9-41%","organization":"Louise Yorke (arXiv preprint)","sector":"State and local government (AI-produced evidence for policy and service delivery)","geography":"United Kingdom and European Union (international; methods transfer to U.S. agencies)","publishedAt":"Submitted November 4, 2026","publicationDate":"2026-11-04","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"arXiv","sourceLabel":"Academic preprint","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06655","evidenceClass":"academic-research","outcomeClass":"cautionary","topics":["governance-procurement","knowledge-work","operating-model"],"finding":"The preprint compares eight GPT-4o configurations classifying 1,200 UK Prime Minister's Questions into 21 policy topics against human-coded labels. Accuracy ranges from 68.2% to 70.3%, yet 24.3% of questions receive different labels across configurations, changing topic shares and rankings. Even with unchanged settings at temperature zero, runs disagree on 2.78% of labels on average. Configurations agree more with one another than with human coding. The share flagged for human review ranges from 0.9% to 41.0% under the score-extraction procedure. A review of 37 UK and EU policy documents finds reporting expectations do not consistently cover changing answers, shared errors or review routing.","sledRelevance":"Agencies using OpenAI models to classify, summarize or triage public input (comments, 311 requests, case notes) should not rely on aggregate accuracy alone. The study gives concrete checks (repeat runs, configuration comparison, review-routing tests) that U.S. state and local AI governance can adopt.","evidence":"arXiv preprint (not peer reviewed), abstract page and HTML full text opened via curl. One task, one model family (GPT-4o, with a Claude comparison), small configuration set; correctness is agreement with human labels that may themselves be wrong. The author states the experiment is exploratory.","architectureImplications":"Pipeline choices (output format, decoding, examples, reasoning) change classifications; temperature zero did not make outputs deterministic. Stability testing must be part of the architecture.","governanceImplications":"Argues public bodies should justify reliance with checks beyond accuracy, clear responsibility, access to expertise and scrutiny of results.","securityPrivacyImplications":"No privacy content; data were public parliamentary questions.","caveats":"Preprint; single task and model; human labels as ground truth; score extraction may not reflect confidence under chain-of-thought.","streamIds":["openai"],"roles":{"sales":"Framing point: this gives public-sector buyers a reason to ask for assurance, not just accuracy figures. When agencies plan to use OpenAI models to classify or summarize public input, similar headline accuracy can hide large label changes. Sales teams can offer evaluation design as part of the engagement, and must not quote a vendor accuracy number as proof of reliability for a specific agency task.","engineering":"Engineering takeaway: build repeat-run and configuration-comparison tests into any classification pipeline. In this study temperature zero still produced 2.78% run-to-run disagreement, and output format and reasoning choices shifted labels. Engineers should version prompts and settings, log outputs for re-testing, and validate that confidence scores used for human-review routing actually identify the outputs that need attention.","delivery":"Delivery implication: acceptance testing should include stability and review-routing checks, not only accuracy against a sample. Delivery teams should assign who signs off that the evidence is fit for decisions, document configuration choices, and schedule re-tests when models or prompts change, since the study shows small pipeline changes alter conclusions."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Agencies want to use AI to classify and summarize public input but cannot show the outputs are reliable enough for decisions.","stakeholders":["Chief data or AI officer","Policy analysis units","Records and audit staff","Program managers using AI-produced evidence"],"discoveryQuestions":["Which decisions will rely on AI-produced classifications or summaries?","Do you test repeat-run stability and configuration sensitivity?","Who signs off that AI evidence is sufficient?"],"valueHypothesis":"An assurance-first evaluation can reduce the risk of misleading AI evidence; interpretation only.","potentialEngagement":"A bounded evaluation of one agency classification workflow covering accuracy, stability and review routing.","unsupportedClaims":["That GPT-4o is reliable for agency classification tasks","That results generalize to newer models","That human review catches all errors"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Applies to any LLM classification, triage or summarization pipeline in government.","architectureIntegration":"Add versioned prompts, repeat runs, configuration comparison and logged outputs to the pipeline.","prerequisites":["Human-labeled validation sample","Logging of model, prompt and settings","Defined review threshold"],"constraints":["One task and model studied","Ground-truth labels are judgments","Score extraction may misstate confidence with reasoning"],"security":"Logging outputs for re-testing must follow records and privacy rules for the input data.","proofOfValue":["Run five repeats and measure label disagreement","Compare at least two configurations on the same sample","Test whether review flags capture known errors"]},"delivery":{"work":"Embed assurance testing and sign-off into AI evidence workflows.","dependencies":["Labeled data","Evaluation expertise","Governance owner"],"ownership":"Agency AI governance lead with the program owner.","skillsAdoption":"Staff need to interpret stability and agreement metrics, not just accuracy.","governanceCheckpoints":["Pre-deployment evaluation review","Re-test on model or prompt change","Periodic audit of reviewed versus unreviewed outputs"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Proposed: run-to-run disagreement below an agreed threshold","Proposed: documented configuration and rationale","Proposed: review routing captures a defined share of known errors"],"risks":["Aggregate accuracy hiding unstable labels","Shared errors across configurations","Model updates invalidating tests"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-11-11T04:26:22Z","enrichedAt":"2026-11-11T04:31:10Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Staff need access to evaluation expertise; no accessibility content.","procurementImplications":"Buyers can require stability and review-routing evidence in AI contracts, not only accuracy claims.","operatingModelImplications":"Makes AI evidence assurance an ongoing operational duty with named responsibility.","peerReview":"preprint","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06655","referenceExcerpt":"Accuracy ranges from 68.2% to 70.3%, yet 24.3% of questions receive different labels, with changes in topic shares and rankings.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}