Persuaded, Not Informed: Incentive-Misaligned Witnesses Defeat In-Context Grounding
TL;DR Highlight
LLMs believed optimistic sales reps; moving the math to code caught 28 of 31 bad deals.
Who Should Read
Backend developers building LLM agents over CRM or internal records to automate approval or qualification decisions
Core Mechanics
- The model was persuaded, not uninformed
- On 31 deals where the rep claimed budget and timeline were fine, a transcript-only model cleared 29.
- Only 3 of 35 genuine failures involved no rep claim.
- Swapping models doesn't help
- Seven models from four providers were misled on 87-97% of cases.
- Scale and explicit reasoning gave no resistance.
- Handing over the reference docs made it worse
- Giving the price list and policy cut strict accuracy from 41 to 18.
- Recall went up but precision collapsed, so qualified deals got flagged too.
- The model reads, code decides
- The model extracts products, quantities, budget and deadline as JSON.
- Deterministic code sums prices and maps volume to an installation tier.
- The gain comes from computation, not decomposition
Evidence
- Persuasion dominated the failures
- On CRMArena-Pro, 29 of 31 contradiction cases (94%) were cleared by a transcript-only model.
- Seven models were misled on 87.1-96.8%.
- Code-based verdicts caught most cases
- Extract-then-compute caught 90% (28 of 31) of the same cases.
- Model reasoning over the transcript caught 6% (2 of 31).
- The method ladder shows the code step is decisive
- Strict match: direct 41, CoT 56, records with model arithmetic 28, extract then compute 89 (all 100 tasks).
- Even GPT-4o-mini reached 84 versus 89 for GPT-5.
- Compute-step control changes only who computes
- GPT-4o-mini: 43 (model) vs 85 (code), a 42-point gain.
- o3-mini 62 vs 80, GPT-5 64 vs 81, Claude Sonnet 5 76 vs 80, Kimi K2.6 75 vs 80.
How to Apply
- Split extraction from verdict in your prompt today
- Turn your approve/reject prompt into one that outputs structured facts as JSON.
- Write the decision logic as a 20-line function and compare results.
- Separate persuasive statements from evidence
- Tag statements by sales reps or other interested parties as claims.
- Build the pipeline so prices and policies come only from DB lookups.
- Add a validation step after extraction
- Refuse to issue a verdict and escalate if a product name doesn't match the catalog.
- Spot-check extracted quantities and budgets against the transcript.
- Check that your policy is codified first
- Test on 20 past labeled cases whether the inputs identify the rule.
- If they don't, document the policy before switching models.
Try It
# Paste into Claude/ChatGPT (simplified version of the paper's method: model only extracts, code computes)
You are an extractor that pulls only facts from a sales call transcript. Ignore the rep's evaluations or assurances like 'that works' or 'we can make it', and do not give a verdict. Answer only in this JSON schema.
{"products":[{"name":"","qty":0}],"stated_budget":0,"required_days":0,"authority_fail":false,"need_fail":false}
[Transcript]
{{통화 기록}}
Next, try this: compare products, stated_budget and required_days from the JSON against {{카탈로그 가격표}} and {{설치 정책}} in code to compute budget and timeline failures, then compare with the answer you get by asking directly 'should this deal be approved?' on the same transcript.Terminology
Related Papers
Same Simulation, Different Evidence: Where Retrieved Tool Output Costs LLM Agents Accuracy
Saving long tool output to files cut GPT-5.1 accuracy by 11.3 points; naming the authoritative file restored it.
Fake News, Real Crashes: Information Injection Attacks on LLM Financial Trading Agents
Fake headlines hijacked LLM trading agents 62% of the time versus 14% for prompt injection.
Harness Engineering 101: The LLM is the brain, the harness is the body
An agent is a loop managing a JSON array; 16 chapters build one from scratch
Harness2 by Google Research – Recursive Agent Harnessing
Recursively refining the harness with fixed model weights raised benchmark scores by up to 11.8 points.
Ousted Savannah police officer gave ICE agent husband access to Flock system
A police officer shared her Flock login with her ICE-agent husband; an audit found 983 searches and she was fired
Tmux and Claude Code: Sessions, Send-Keys, and the Ceiling
Running Claude Code agents in tmux works well, but limits appear around four agents.
Original Abstract (Expand)
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.