GPS-Bench: A Governance Policy Benchmark for Automating Policy Analysis

Policy analysis requires more than predicting whether a proposal will pass: it requires identifying who will be affected, how those actors respond, and what follows. LLM-based policy simulations model these processes at scale, but their validity is hard to establish when plausible behaviour is never compared with observed outcomes. We introduce GPS-Bench, an evidence-grounded benchmark for governance policy simulation that links policies to relevant actors, actor actions and downstream impacts using legislative records, lobbying disclosures, regulatory documents, corporate filings, economic data and other public evidence. Actors are reconstructed from the dated record rather than prompted as archetypes, so a persona is an evidence object with provenance; a human-annotated pool forms the Gold evaluation set, while cases labelled by a separate LLM from retrieved evidence are treated as Silver supervision and never as test labels. Because every inference mode reads the same grounded state and emits the same schema, GPS-Bench turns "does multi-agent simulation help?" into a controlled comparison: we contrast joint reasoning, independent and communicating actor agents, graph-based methods and weight-level fine-tuning over one policy state. Fine-tuning on the grounded record gives the strongest actor-level impact prediction, and decomposition does not beat it; what decomposition adds is mechanism. Agents hold private, non-identical evidence, each seeing its own exposure clause, and address named partners with concrete joint proposals, what they offer, what they need in return, and why acting together beats acting alone, so the coalitions that form can be checked against the commitments the record holds. GPS-Bench therefore gives a common empirical setting for studying when evidence, actor modelling and multi-agent interaction improve the prediction and interpretation of policy outcomes.

Operationalising Relative Causal Knowledge: Backbone Identifiability from Private Reports on a Shared Outcome

The Relativity of Causal Knowledge (RCK) explains how a network of agents with different structural causal models can exchange causal knowledge through a shared interventionally consistent abstraction, or backbone. We ask the prior identification question that this transport mechanism presupposes: when is that backbone determined by the agents' private causal knowledge? In the basic two-agent common-effect case, two private causes influence one shared outcome and each agent identifies only the single-cause causal marginal relevant to its own perspective. We show that, under standard compatibility, non-degeneracy, and local overlap assumptions, those local causal marginals do not identify a unique backbone. Infinitely many joint intervention kernels can induce exactly the same private reports while disagreeing on joint interventions. We then give a conditional recovery result. Additive separability removes the hidden interaction degree of freedom, but observational residual summaries remain insufficient. Identification becomes possible when agents communicate causally identified response functions. An education value-added example illustrates why this is first a communication problem, and only then a policy-composition problem.