STONIC: A Layered Measurement Contract for LLM Value Profiling

LLM value studies often merge questionnaire ratings, pairwise choices, and values inferred from generated text into one profile. That merge assumes that the three observations describe the same stable preference. STONIC tests this assumption on 5,144 situations from four banks and 35 fixed model configurations. It compares responses rated in isolation, choices made under counterbalanced conflict, spontaneous answers, and later choices between a model's own answer and authored alternatives. 10 of 17 configurations with usable behavioral data preserve the endorsement-choice relation across banks. Every one of the 17 eligible configurations prefers its own earlier answer (median effect 0.790), although option position changes the choice rate in every eligible configuration. Profile shape transfers most strongly from ratings to conflict choices and weakens for spontaneous text. Three-way annotation of 200 L3 responses provides a task-local check of the semantic audit: FULCRA agrees most closely with the human majority, while DeBERTa retains useful rank information after calibration. Hidden states encode the completed decision more clearly than the prompt alone. Thus the models show reproducible behavioral continuity, but the evidence does not support one scorer-independent value identity across interfaces.

Measuring and Improving Behavioral Consistency in Large Language Models through Fact-Heuristic-Emotion State Enforcement

Large language models (LLMs) can give different answers to the same decision problem across runs, and reverse a decision when their own prior answer returns as context. We ask whether this instability can be measured and partially reduced without changing model weights. We test the Cognitive Kernel Model (CKM), a prompt-level state-enforcement layer. Before deciding, the model must separate its input into three epistemic roles: Fact (given or verifiable), Heuristic (inferred or assumed), and Emotion (evaluative or priority signal). CKM adds no capability; it forces the model to track what kind of information it uses before acting. Formally it maintains a structured state S_t = {F_t, H_t, E_t} updated by a transition function. We evaluate CKM on Korean-language decision scenarios (ambiguity, ethical conflict, resource allocation, error handling) across 26 LLMs from four vendors and 37,403 observations, via four core experiments, a 4-arm ablation, a 5-arm sham-restriction ablation, and a temperature probe. Findings: (1) CKM reduces repeated-output variability (random-effects Hedges' g=1.09, 95% CI [0.83, 1.35], 31 model pairs); (2) state persistence cuts the decision-flip rate by 82% in newer models (g=1.52); (3) the effect is not JSON formatting alone (value-only recomputation, g=2.24); (4) intrinsic randomness under fixed anchor states is negligible; (5) the advantage grows under sampling stochasticity (g=2.87 at temperature 0.7); (6) a sham ablation attributes about 45% of the gain to structural scaffolding and 55% to Fact/Heuristic/Emotion content, and CKM is the only arm that both raises consistency and reduces flipping. CKM does not improve reasoning correctness. The narrower result: behavioral consistency is measurable, varies across models, and is partially improvable by forcing models to separate facts, assumptions, and evaluative signals before deciding.