{
  "schema_version": "1.0",
  "id": "s13:https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.21558v1",
  "slug": "2607-21558v1-08a9uzz",
  "url": "https://feed7.dev/p/2607-21558v1-08a9uzz",
  "title": "Beyond Sycophancy: Structured Resistance and Compliance in LLM Moral Reasoning",
  "why_included": "Three studies suggest LLM compliance varies with opinion distance, claimed source, and coalition structure, so agent tests should probe how framing changes judgment rather than score sycophancy once.",
  "summary": "Across **three studies**, model judgment revision varied along **three dimensions**: distance from the initial position, attribution of the incoming view, and the coalition supporting it. Nearby views and statements framed as the model's own prior judgment had more influence.",
  "practical_implication": "Builders testing consequential agents should vary who supposedly supplied a claim, how far it departs from the model's answer, and whether multiple voices support it. A single agreement-rate test can conflate constructive revision with ungrounded compliance.",
  "agent_context": "Across **three studies**, model judgment revision varied along **three dimensions**: distance from the initial position, attribution of the incoming view, and the coalition supporting it. Nearby views and statements framed as the model's own prior judgment had more influence.\n\nBuilders testing consequential agents should vary who supposedly supplied a claim, how far it departs from the model's answer, and whether multiple voices support it. A single agreement-rate test can conflate constructive revision with ungrounded compliance.\n\nThe study concerns moral reasoning and describes directional effects without magnitudes in the supplied material. Whether the same structure governs coding reviews, factual disputes, or tool-mediated agent work is unresolved.",
  "source": {
    "name": "arXiv",
    "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.21558v1",
    "published_at": "2026-07-23T17:40:07.000Z"
  },
  "source_class": "blog_post",
  "content_type": "Paper",
  "layer": "benchmark",
  "domains": [
    "research"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "agent-evals",
    "agent-reliability"
  ],
  "verification": {
    "status": "needs_review",
    "label": "Needs Review",
    "method": "unverified",
    "verified_at": null
  },
  "uncertainty": [
    "The study concerns moral reasoning and describes directional effects without magnitudes in the supplied material. Whether the same structure governs coding reviews, factual disputes, or tool-mediated agent work is unresolved."
  ],
  "lifecycle": "Current",
  "published_at": "2026-07-23T17:40:07.000Z",
  "modified_at": "2026-07-23T17:40:07.000Z",
  "supersedes": [],
  "expires_at": null,
  "formats": {
    "html": "https://feed7.dev/p/2607-21558v1-08a9uzz",
    "json": "https://feed7.dev/p/2607-21558v1-08a9uzz.json",
    "markdown": "https://feed7.dev/p/2607-21558v1-08a9uzz.md"
  }
}