# Behavioural feasible set: Value alignment constraints on AI decision support

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.21435 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.21435/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 6 of its 58 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Mar 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [Learning to summarize from human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.01325/) (2020)
- [Concrete Problems in AI Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.06565/) (2016)
- [Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.09768/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

When organisations adopt commercial AI systems for decision support, they inherit value judgements embedded by vendors that are neither transparent nor renegotiable. The governance puzzle is not whether AI can support decisions but which recommendations the system can actually produce given how its vendor has configured it. I formalise this as a behavioural feasible set, the range of recommendations reachable under vendor-imposed alignment constraints, and characterise diagnostic thresholds for when organisational requirements exceed the system's flexibility. In scenario-based experiments using binary decision scenarios and multi-stakeholder ranking tasks, I show that alignment materially compresses this set. Comparing pre- and post-alignment variants of an open-weight model isolates the mechanism: alignment makes the system substantially less able to shift its recommendation even under legitimate contextual pressure. Leading commercial models exhibit comparable or greater rigidity. In multi-stakeholder tasks, alignment shifts implied stakeholder priorities rather than neutralising them, meaning organisations adopt embedded value orientations set upstream by the vendor. Organisations thus face a governance problem that better prompting cannot resolve: selecting a vendor partially determines which trade-offs remain negotiable and which stakeholder priorities are structurally embedded.