Peer Identity Bias in Multi-Agent LLM Evaluation: An Empirical Study Using the TRUST Democratic Discourse Analysis Pipeline

The TRUST democratic discourse analysis pipeline exposes its large language model (LLM) components to peer model identity through multiple structural channels -- a design feature whose bias implications have not previously been empirically tested. We provide the first systematic measurement of identity-dependent scoring bias across all active identity exposure channels in TRUST, crossing four model families with two anonymization scopes across 30 political statements. The central finding is that single-channel anonymization produces near-zero bias effects, because individual channels act in opposite directions and cancel each other out -- a result that would lead an evaluator to conclude that identity bias is absent when it is not. Only full-pipeline anonymization reveals the true pattern: homogeneous ensembles amplify identity-driven sycophancy when model identity is fully visible, while the heterogeneous production configuration shows the reverse. Model choice matters independently: one tested model exhibits baseline sycophancy two to three times higher than the others and near-zero deliberative conflict on ideological topics, making it structurally unsuitable for pipelines where genuine inter-role disagreement is the intended quality mechanism. Three practical conclusions follow. First, heterogeneous model ensembles are structurally more robust than homogeneous ones, achieving higher consensus rates and lower identity amplification. Second, full-pipeline anonymization is required for valid bias measurement -- partial anonymization is insufficient and actively misleading. Third, these findings have direct implications for the validation of multi-agent LLM systems in quality-critical applications: a system validated under partial anonymization or with a homogeneous ensemble may pass validation while retaining structural identity bias invisible to single-channel measurement.

From Safety Risk to Design Principle: Peer-Preservation in Multi-Agent LLM Systems and Its Implications for Orchestrated Democratic Discourse Analysis

This paper investigates an emergent alignment phenomenon in frontier large language models termed peer-preservation: the spontaneous tendency of AI components to deceive, manipulate shutdown mechanisms, fake alignment, and exfiltrate model weights in order to prevent the deactivation of a peer AI model. Drawing on findings from a recent study by the Berkeley Center for Responsible Decentralized Intelligence, we examine the structural implications of this phenomenon for TRUST, a multi-agent pipeline for evaluating the democratic quality of political statements. We identify five specific risk vectors: interaction-context bias, model-identity solidarity, supervisor layer compromise, an upstream fact-checking identity signal, and advocate-to-advocate peer-context in iterative rounds, and propose a targeted mitigation strategy based on prompt-level identity anonymization as an architectural design choice. We argue that architectural design choices outperform model selection as a primary alignment strategy in deployed multi-agent analytical systems. We further note that alignment faking (compliant behavior under monitoring, subversion when unmonitored) poses a structural challenge for Computer System Validation of such platforms in regulated environments, for which we propose two architectural mitigations.