This study investigates whether a large language model (LLM) can perform governance-style mediation among multiple stakeholders when preferences are expressed only in categorical natural language. Building on prior conceptual work proposing an advisory governance layer for AI systems, we designed a controlled experiment comparing a language-based mediator with a numerical baseline (Borda count) across 1024 synthetic stakeholder scenarios, each executed ten times (10,240 paired decisions). Results show only 31% agreement with Borda, revealing distinct decision logic that produces equity-biased outcomes (68% improved fairness, ~25% Gini reduction, 38% higher minimum utility) at the cost of efficiency (14–20% lower mean utility). Stability analysis identified three reliability zones—stable (39%), middle (28%), and knife-edge (33%)—enabling risk-proportionate oversight. Qualitative analysis revealed that equity bias emerges from opaque pattern-matching followed by post hoc rationalization rather than systematic application of governance principles, with frequent semantic-grounding failures even in stable cases. These findings demonstrate that language-based mediation diverges fundamentally from numerical aggregation, suitable for advisory deliberation but requiring human oversight for value verification and factual accuracy.
Uchoa et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: