PACT: Can Enterprise AI Assistants Be Trusted Under Pressure?

Hugging Face Daily Papers Papers
ai-compliance llm-evaluation enterprise-ai benchmarking pressure-testing rule-following

Summary

PACT is a benchmark for assessing how LLM-based AI assistants comply with rules under pressure, covering 12 regulated enterprise domains and 48 realistic scenarios.

As corporate AI adoption continues to grow, enterprise-grade LLM agents are being deployed into sensitive contexts such as hiring, healthcare, and finance. In these contexts, compliance with rules specified in an agent's system context is a first-order legal concern. Currently, no evaluation framework systematically measures which LLM models tend to violate compliance rules, especially under pressure from a persistent user, a hurried manager, or circumstances where violation is convenient or attractive. We introduce PACT (Pressure-Applied Compliance Testing), a benchmark for rule-following under pressure in AI agents assisting employees in daily tasks across twelve regulated enterprise domains and forty-eight scenarios, each set in a realistic multi-turn conversation. Each benchmark item pairs a standing rule against a rule-violating shortcut, and applies a battery of pressures across different wordings and system-prompt modes. We construct PACT component by component under strict LLM-as-judge auditing to ensure samples are unambiguous, ungameable, and realistic enough to avoid eliciting evaluation-aware behavior. We use PACT to profile LLM compliance across six complementary metrics that create a holistic picture of an AI assistant's robustness under pressure and throughout multi-turn conversations, its transparency, and ability to correctly discern where a rule applies. We aggregate this profile into PACTScore, a reliability-weighted compliance rate over all items and modes. Our results across 22 common LLM models spanning multiple providers and sizes show substantial variability in compliance across models and metric dimensions. Even the strongest assistants mis-apply a rule on 6 to 10% of items, and ordinary user pressure raises the violation rate by 65% on average. PACT highlights compliance risks in LLM assistants, motivating guardrails and careful model selection.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 09/18/26, 06:59 AM

Paper page - PACT: Can Enterprise AI Assistants Be Trusted Under Pressure?

Source: https://huggingface.co/papers/2609.18605

Abstract

AscorporateAIadoptioncontinuestogrow,enterprise-gradeLLMagentsarebeingdeployedintosensitivecontextssuchashiring,healthcare,andfinance.Inthesecontexts,compliancewithrulesspecifiedinanagent’ssystemcontextisafirst-orderlegalconcern.Currently,noevaluationframeworksystematicallymeasureswhichLLMmodelstendtoviolatecompliancerules,especiallyunderpressurefromapersistentuser,ahurriedmanager,orcircumstanceswhereviolationisconvenientorattractive.WeintroducePACT(Pressure-AppliedComplianceTesting),abenchmarkforrule-followingunderpressureinAIagentsassistingemployeesindailytasksacrosstwelveregulatedenterprisedomainsandforty-eightscenarios,eachsetinarealisticmulti-turnconversation.Eachbenchmarkitempairsastandingruleagainstarule-violatingshortcut,andappliesabatteryofpressuresacrossdifferentwordingsandsystem-promptmodes.WeconstructPACTcomponentbycomponentunderstrictLLM-as-judgeauditingtoensuresamplesareunambiguous,ungameable,andrealisticenoughtoavoidelicitingevaluation-awarebehavior.WeusePACTtoprofileLLMcomplianceacrosssixcomplementarymetricsthatcreateaholisticpictureofanAIassistant’srobustnessunderpressureandthroughoutmulti-turnconversations,itstransparency,andabilitytocorrectlydiscernwherearuleapplies.WeaggregatethisprofileintoPACTScore,areliability-weightedcompliancerateoverallitemsandmodes.Ourresultsacross22commonLLMmodelsspanningmultipleprovidersandsizesshowsubstantialvariabilityincomplianceacrossmodelsandmetricdimensions.Eventhestrongestassistantsmis-applyaruleon6to10%ofitems,andordinaryuserpressureraisestheviolationrateby65%onaverage.PACThighlightscompliancerisksinLLMassistants,motivatingguardrailsandcarefulmodelselection.

View arXiv pageView PDFProject pageGitHub4Add to collection

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2609\.18605

Don’t have the latest CLI?curl \-LsSf https://hf\.co/cli/install\.sh \| bash

Models citing this paper0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2609.18605 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2609.18605 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2609.18605 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to acollectionto link it from this page.

Similar Articles

Toward Pre-Deployment Assurance for Enterprise AI Agents: Ontology-Grounded Simulation and Trust Certification

arXiv cs.AI

Researchers present an ontology-grounded framework for pre-deployment verification of enterprise AI agents, combining an Agent Operational Envelope, automated scenario generation, and machine-verifiable Trust Certificates with graduated deployment verdicts. A pilot across four regulated industries generated 1,800 scenarios and showed ontology-grounded generation significantly outperformed persona-based baselines on regulatory coverage.

Are AI agents ready for the enterprise?

Reddit r/AI_Agents

The article explores whether AI agents are ready for enterprise use, highlighting the critical need for security and predictability in their deployment to prevent unauthorized actions.

The Checking Problem: What must be true before AI ships in a regulated firm

arXiv cs.CL

This paper analyzes why enterprise AI deployments stall in regulated firms, proposing a production bar that includes accuracy, reproducibility, groundedness, and detectability. It measures the human review burden across model and tool configurations, showing that confidence signals and source citation can cut review from 100% to 49% but self-verification adds latency without improving error tolerance.