An Instrument to Evaluate Governance Proposals: AI Policy Analysis at Scale

This paper introduces a policy analysis framework for systematic, transparent assessment of AI governance proposals in an evolving and contested regulatory landscape. AI policy debates often collapse into binary positions that obscure underlying tradeoffs and normative assumptions. The framework structures policy analysis around multiple policy attributes, allowing users to surface priorities and tensions without prescribing outcomes. We use a mixed-methods approach that integrates qualitative insights from subject matter experts with computational text analysis to inform the design of policy attribute rubrics. This quantifies the relative emphasis of different policy objectives and presents them through comparative visualizations that support interpretability and cross-policy comparison. The paper also examines the use of commercial LLMs for rubric-based policy analysis, benchmarking their outputs against a domain-trained rubric-calibrated model with explicitly defined analytical assumptions. Rather than assessing policy effectiveness or desirability, the framework focuses on relevance and alignment across attributes. By making analytical assumptions explicit, including attribute selection, rubric construction, and weighting schemes, the framework enables users to evaluate whether its embedded priorities align with the users' own normative commitments. The approach is jurisdiction-agnostic and intended to support policymakers, analysts, and researchers navigating complex AI governance environments. Contributions: (1) multidimensional policy assessment through empirically grounded rubrics that surface tradeoffs rather than resolving them; (2) a transparent hybrid methodology combining feedback from subject-matter experts with computational validation; and (3) use of domain-trained rubric-calibrated models as a benchmark for comparing different general-purpose large language models.

Rating the Pitch, Not the Product: User Evaluations of LLMs Reflect Expectations More Than Performance

Imagine two users interact with the same LLM. One has been told it is the cutting-edge flagship model; the other, an older, weaker model. They walk away with markedly different ratings of its usefulness and intelligence, yet they used the same model. In a controlled study, 162 participants each used one of six LLMs from two families across three collaborative tasks, after first viewing a landing page that matched, overstated, or understated their model's true capability. This pre-interaction framing shifted user opinions and interaction behavior while task performance did not. Oversold users rated the model more favorably and used more directive prompting, while Undersold users wrote longer, more collaborative prompts. The quality of what users and the model produced together depended only on the model's true capability, not on what users were told. Participants' change in model impressions after use, measured across two impression measures, was not predicted by task performance ($β= -0.01$ and $0.11$, both n.s.), but by whether the model met users' expectations ($β= 0.47$ and $0.50$, both $p < .001$) and how confident they felt working with it ($β= 0.47$ and $0.36$, both $p < .001$). After interaction, users are still rating the pitch, not the product: user-elicited LLM evaluations, including the preference data driving public leaderboards, measure expectation management at least as much as the model itself.