# Augur: A Synthetic Decision Lab for Rehearsing Reactions to Product and Policy Changes

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.29952 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.29952/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 15 of its 23 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1503.02531/) (2015)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Gemma 3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.19786/) (2025)
- [From Local to Global: A Graph RAG Approach to Query-Focused Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.16130/) (2024)
- [CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17760/) (2023)
- [Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11324/) (2023)
- [Sequence-Level Knowledge Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.07947/) (2016)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [The False Promise of Imitating Proprietary LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15717/) (2023)
- [OASIS: Open Agent Social Interaction Simulations with One Million Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.11581/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Before a product or policy change ships, the question that matters is how people will react to it. Augur rehearses that reaction offline: it builds a typed knowledge graph from the change documents, populates a grounded persona market, simulates the interaction, and returns an auditable decision memo recommending one of five actions. We assemble Gold-50, fifty real product and policy episodes whose real-world outcome is known, adjudicated against the public record, and score the five-way release verdict against it. Our central finding is methodological and negative: most of the measured gap between frontier cloud models and open-weight models we fine-tune and serve offline is attributable to an under-specified evaluation, not a difference in capability. We show this three ways. First, the prompt envelope alone can dominate the score: holding weights, cases and scorer fixed, one system -- a LoRA-SFT adapter on Qwen3-32B -- swings from 0% to 73%. Second, in a matched 2x2 ablation, defining the decision taxonomy in the prompt -- with no model change -- lifts every frontier model by +24 to +34pp; under the under-specified prompt, Qwen3-32B LoRA-SFT served offline beats all three frontier models (paired McNemar, Holm-corrected), and once the prompt is fair no significant difference from any of them is detected. Third, agreement with the distillation teacher rises without accuracy following, and the full pipeline amplifies a systematic "over-doom" bias rather than improving the verdict. Separately, we validate the reaction layer on its own terms: blind judges across four model families find the synthetic reaction recovers 67-90% of the concerns the public actually raised, and a pre-registered ablation locates its value -- largest where the decision is hardest, redundant near ceiling. The pipeline that regenerates every number and figure here is available from the authors.