Altitude Lock: More How, Still No Why

Every work request carries choices nobody states: which outcome counts, over what horizon, for whom, by what measure, and whether the task is worth doing at all. This paper measures how often AI assistants surface one of those choices while still doing the work they were asked to do. Across 2,496 generated responses and 4,992 judgements on 60 items spanning six framing dimensions, unprompted surfacing rose from 5.2% to 23.3% between two model generations three months apart (paired difference +18.1 pp, 95% CI [+11.5, +25.4], sign test p = 1.1 × 10^-6; cluster-robust logistic OR 5.5, p = 2.4 × 10^-8). The measure requires both naming the framing choice and completing the request. The second finding has consequences for evaluation design. An arm whose prompt explicitly invited critique reached an asserting level in 52.7% of responses and surfaced in 0.0%, because completion fell to zero. Framing engagement and task completion move independently, so an evaluation scoring critique alone would rank the worst intervention as the best. Data, code and figures are deposited separately at DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22847076. Every number in the paper is generated by a single statistics module and checked by a build gate that refuses any figure not resolving to it.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-09-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22847057
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
preprint

Altitude Lock: More How, Still No Why

Vijay Suresh
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
preprint

Altitude Lock: More How, Still No Why

Vijay Suresh
preprint en

Abstract

Every work request carries choices nobody states: which outcome counts, over what horizon, for whom, by what measure, and whether the task is worth doing at all. This paper measures how often AI assistants surface one of those choices while still doing the work they were asked to do. Across 2,496 generated responses and 4,992 judgements on 60 items spanning six framing dimensions, unprompted surfacing rose from 5.2% to 23.3% between two model generations three months apart (paired difference +18.1 pp, 95% CI [+11.5, +25.4], sign test p = 1.1 × 10^-6; cluster-robust logistic OR 5.5, p = 2.4 × 10^-8). The measure requires both naming the framing choice and completing the request. The second finding has consequences for evaluation design. An arm whose prompt explicitly invited critique reached an asserting level in 52.7% of responses and surfaced in 0.0%, because completion fell to zero. Framing engagement and task completion move independently, so an evaluation scoring critique alone would rank the worst intervention as the best. Data, code and figures are deposited separately at DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22847076. Every number in the paper is generated by a single statistics module and checked by a build gate that refuses any figure not resolving to it.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Altitude Lock: More How, Still No Why — Vijay Suresh · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS