# Whose Voice Survives the Summary? A Voice-Retention Audit of LLM Employee Listening

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.38818 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.38818/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 29 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Datasheets for Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.09010/) (2018)
- [Model Cards for Model Reporting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03993/) (2018)
- [Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14050/) (2020)
- [On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00661/) (2020)
- [ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.15056/) (2023)
- [The State and Fate of Linguistic Diversity and Inclusion in the NLP World](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.09095/) (2020)
- [Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13848/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.03514/) (2023)
- [Dialect Diversity in Text Summarization on Twitter](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.07860/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Organizations increasingly route employee feedback to leaders through large language model (LLM) summaries, an unaudited layer that silences already-spoken voice. We introduce a Voice Retention / Representation Ratio metric for representational bias in summarization and apply it to a bilingual (English/German) corpus of 2,586 free-text responses from a global professional service company. First, employees supply criticism more reliably than praise (withholding praise is 82 times more common). Second, across 45 leader-summaries the pipeline filters by popularity, not sentiment: criticism survives, yet a concern voiced once is dropped 86% of the time, with short and German-only content lost on the same axis (theme retention 0.14 vs 0.74; German directional). Controlling for frequency, sentiment has no independent effect; the harm is prevalence-driven, which sentiment-only audits miss. A targeted prompt recovers only named themes. We contribute the metric, field evidence, and a disaggregated voice-retention card.