# Beyond Accuracy: How Procedural Traces Shift the Decision Criterion of LLM Overseers

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.18204 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.18204/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 25 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Enabling Large Language Models to Generate Text with Citations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14627/) (2023)
- [Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.14779/) (2020)
- [The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilot](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.06590/) (2023)
- [Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21819/) (2024)
- [Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Survey on Agentic RAG](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.09136/) (2025)
- [Explanations Can Reduce Overreliance on AI Systems During Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.06823/) (2022)
- [When Synthetic Users Fail: A Cross-Domain Benchmark of LLM-Simulated Human Survey Responses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.26348/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Organizations increasingly use oversight loops where one large language model (LLM) audits another's outputs alongside procedural traces of claimed steps. A common concern about such LLM-as-a-judge pipelines is that detailed traces make overseers gullible. Using signal detection theory, we audit five LLM overseers on 19 compliance tasks (4,551 analyzed judgments), varying only trace detail and evidence labeling. With disconfirming evidence always visible, error detection remains near ceiling. Instead, elaborate traces shift the decision criterion toward rejection, increasing false alarms in susceptible overseers. Without option labels, human-validated reason coding shows about 60% of false alarms cite an inability to tie evidence to its option. Labels eliminate this stated reason, yet residual rejection of correct work persists in those overseers and rises with trace detail. Procedural traces thus act as governance artifacts that shape oversight decisions. AI auditors should be evaluated by their decision criterion and false-alarm behavior, alongside accuracy.