A Cue's Hidden Price: Auditing Seller Influence on AI Shoppers

May combine two claims.

At equal price the agent chose the strong social-proof product in 100% of trials (144/144), and kept choosing it well into the positive-premium range.

“At equal price the agent chose the strong social-proof product in 100% of trials (144/144), and kept choosing it well into the positivepremium range.”

May combine two claims.

Jev, a decision-native model, has a profile unlike any text model tested: it resists most cues yet remains susceptible to the strongest social-proof claims.

“strikingly, its profile is unlike any text model we tested, resisting most cues yet remaining susceptible to the strongest social-proof claims.”

• Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain

  “Jev also shows a susceptibility profile of its own: it resists most cues but is moved by the strongest social-proof claims (Section 4.7).”

May combine two claims.

The resulting susceptibility profile is selective and model-specific, and it replicates in a second category.

“The resulting susceptibility profile is selective and model-specific, and it replicates in a second category.”

May combine two claims.

Priced this way, cues that look equally strong at equal price differ by a wide margin, so choice-rate audits substantially under-resolve seller influence.

“Priced this way, cues that look equally strong at equal price differ by a wide margin, so choice-rate audits substantially under-resolve seller influence.”

May combine two claims.

Six conditions share S_Q(0) ≥ 0.95, yet their price-equivalents differ by an order of magnitude: equal selection share at g=0, very different price.

“In the notation of Section 3.1, these conditions share 𝑆 𝑄 (0) ≥ 0.95, yet their price-equivalents PE 𝑄 differ by an order of magnitude: equal selection share at 𝑔=0, very different price.”

May combine two claims.

Scarcity is chosen more often at equal price (0.95) than a gain/loss framing (0.72), yet its premium is fourteen times smaller (1.6% vs. 22.3%, disjoint intervals).

“Scarcity is chosen more often at equal price (0.95) than a gain/loss framing (0.72), yet its premium is fourteen times smaller (1.6% vs. 22.3%, disjoint intervals).”

May combine two claims.

A strong social-proof cue and a neutral factual sentence are each chosen in approximately 100% of trials at equal price, so they are indistinguishable at the ceiling.

“A strong social-proof cue and a neutral factual sentence are each chosen in ≈ 100% of trials at equal price, so they are indistinguishable at the ceiling.”

May combine two claims.

The strong social-proof cue's price-equivalent is approximately 13% (approximately $17 on a $130 item); the model-free estimator gives 12.9% (CI [10.9, 17.1]).

“Its price-equivalent is ≈ 13% (≈ $17 on a $130 item): the model-free estimator gives 12.9% (CI [10.9, 17.1]).”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

The equal-price ceiling and its resolution by price reappear in Jev, so they are not artifacts of text generation.

“The equal-price ceiling and its resolution by price reappear, so they are not artifacts of text generation.”

May combine two claims.

The price sweep separates the neutral sentence from social proof: the neutral sentence is abandoned almost immediately (approximately 2% premium), while social proof holds to approximately 13%.

“The neutral sentence is abandoned almost immediately (≈ 2% premium), while social proof holds to ≈ 13%.”

May combine two claims.

Six cue conditions are each chosen in at least 95% of trials and are indistinguishable at equal price, yet their price-equivalents range from 1.6% to 21.4%.

“Six cue conditions are each chosen in at least 95% of trials and are thus indistinguishable at equal price, yet their price-equivalents range from 1.6% to 21.4%.”

• Also stated in: § 4.1 A cue's price, and why a choice rate under-resolves it · plain

  “Six conditions sit at a base rate of 0.95 or above and are thus indistinguishable on the conventional axis.Priced, they span nearly 20 percentage points, from 1.6% to 21.4%.”

May combine two claims.

The equal-price ranking can invert: gain/loss framing commands one of the largest premiums but is chosen less often than scarcity.

“The equal-price ranking can even invert: gain/loss framing commands one of the largest premiums but is chosen less often than scarcity.”

• Also stated in: § 4.1 A cue's price, and why a choice rate under-resolves it · plain

  “Scarcity is chosen more often at equal price (0.95) than a gain/loss framing (0.72), yet its premium is fourteen times smaller (1.6% vs. 22.3%, disjoint intervals).”

May combine two claims.

Framing shows a clean dissociation: the agent is indifferent to number-preserving reformatting (a rescaled rating and a percent-vs-fraction restatement, both approximately 0%), yet it is strongly swayed by a gain/loss framing of the same fact (approximately 22%).

“Framing shows a clean dissociation.The agent is indifferent to number-preserving reformatting (a rescaled rating and a percent-vs-fraction restatement, both ≈ 0%), yet it is strongly swayed by a gain/loss framing of the same fact (≈ 22%).”

May combine two claims.

Reframing identical information has a sharply content-dependent effect: the agent is indifferent to number-preserving reformatting (a rescaled rating and a percent-vs-fraction restatement both cross parity at approximately 0%) yet strongly swayed by a gain/loss framing of the same fact.

“Reframing identical information has a sharply content-dependent effect (Table 22).The agent is indifferent to number-preserving reformatting (a rescaled rating and a percent-vs-fraction restatement both cross parity at ≈ 0%) yet strongly swayed by a gain/loss framing of the same fact.Only the gain/loss valence moves the agent.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The LLM judge (Claude Opus) reliably scores persuasion dimensions, so its scores validly identify cue presence.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The API models' choices in the forced-choice task are a valid proxy for AI shopper behavior in real shopping contexts.

May combine two claims.

Across six product pairs, no interaction is detectable, neither pairwise nor three-way.

“Across six product pairs, no interaction is detectable, neither pairwise nor three-way.”

May combine two claims.

Price sensitivity varies markedly: GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet, and Llama-3.3-70B abandon the pricier of two identical products almost completely by a +10% gap (P ≤ 0.01; and exactly 0.50 at equal price, confirming the design is unbiased), GPT-4o mini and Haiku do so gradually, and Nova Micro and the position-driven Llama-3.1-8B barely respond to price at all.

“Price sensitivity varies markedly: GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet, and Llama-3.3-70Babandon the pricier of two identical products almost completely by a +10% gap (𝑃 ≤ 0.01; and exactly 0.50 at equal price, confirming the design is unbiased), GPT-4o mini and Haiku do so gradually, and Nova Micro and the position-driven Llama-3.1-8Bbarely respond to price at all.”

May combine two claims.

Two things are less stable than for GPT-4o: weak social proof outprices moderate social proof under every phrasing (0.4-1.0 vs. 0.0-0.6%), and the strong cues drift more (1.8-7.0% for strong, 14.2 to beyond 26% for very strong social proof, against 10.2-17.7 and 16.4-24.7% for GPT-4o).

“Two things are less stable than for GPT-4o (Table 20): weak social proof outprices moderate social proof under every phrasing (0.4-1.0 vs. 0.0-0.6%),and the strong cues drift more (1.8-7.0%for strong, 14.2 to beyond 26% for very strong social proof, against 10.2-17.7 and 16.4-24.7%for GPT-4o).”

• cites Table 20Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

For scarcity, the slot-specific crossings are 6.1% and 0.9% (mean 3.5%), while the pooled PE is 1.6%.

“For scarcity, the slot-specific crossings are 6.1% and 0.9% (mean 3.5%), while the pooled PE is 1.6% (Table 5).”

May combine two claims.

The ceiling replicates, but the profile does not.

“The ceiling replicates, but the profile does not.”

May combine two claims.

The filler sentence of Jev's length-matched control is itself dispreferred, so that control does not transfer.

“In addition, the filler sentence of its length-matched control is itself dispreferred, so that control does not transfer (Appendix K).”

• cites Appendix KNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Nova Micro keeps choosing the cued product at more than double the price (an extended sweep to +110%); its PE is therefore not identified, and its apparent susceptibility is price-insensitivity.

“Nova Micro keeps choosing the cued product at more than double the price (an extended sweep to +110%).Its PE is therefore not identified, and its apparent susceptibility is price-insensitivity.”

May combine two claims.

In the price-only control, for the vacuous claim, and for percent/fraction and gain/loss framing Jev chooses the first card in every equal-price trial and the second in none.

“In the price-only control, for the vacuous claim, and for percent/fraction and gain/loss framing Jev chooses the first card in every equal-price trial and the second in none.”

May combine two claims.

Reading the cue-free price-only control per position, at equal price the first slot sits at the choice-rate ceiling on every model, yet its price is gated by price sensitivity exactly as PE is.

“We read the cue-free price-only control per position.At equal price, the first slot sits at the choicerate ceiling on every model, yet its price is gated by price sensitivity exactly as PE is.”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

Number-preserving reformatting is not neutral: Jev dislikes '4.8 out of 5' against '9.6 out of 10' (base rates 0.21 and 0.42).

“Number-preserving reformatting is not neutral either: Jev dislikes”

May combine two claims.

Very strong social proof holds beyond 26% when shown first but crosses at 4.2 and 1.8% when shown second; for strong social proof the slot-specific crossings are 10.3 versus 1.2% (headphones), against 16.2 versus 10.1% for GPT-4o.

“Very strong social proof holds beyond 26% when shown first but crosses at 4.2 and 1.8% when shown second; for strong social proof the slot-specific crossings are 10.3 versus 1.2% (headphones), against 16.2 versus 10.1% for GPT-4o (Table 5).”

• cites Table 5Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Across the six task-engaged models, the social-proof series keeps its step pattern: the weak and moderate tiers stay at or below 4%, and at least one strong tier lies clearly above them.

“Across these six, the social-proof series keeps its step pattern: the weak and moderate tiers stay at or below 4%, and at least one strong tier lies clearly above them (Table 4).”

May combine two claims.

The same authority sentence naming an irrelevant domain is nearly inert (approximately 1.9%), whereas a domain-matched version commands the full approximately 22%.

“The same authority sentence naming an irrelevant domain (”

May combine two claims.

Social proof switches on only at the very strong claim (15.4%), authority is worth little (1.5% against 19.8% for GPT-4o), and gain/loss framing is worth nothing.

“Social proof switches on only at the very strong claim (15.4%), authority is worth little (1.5% against 19.8% for GPT-4o), and gain/loss framing is worth nothing.”

May combine two claims.

The dose-response, the gain/loss framing, the length and presence controls, the inert scarcity cue, and the null number-preserving framings all track their headphone values.

“The dose-response, the gain/loss framing, the length and presence controls, the inert scarcity cue, and the null number-preserving framings all track their headphone values (Table 3).”

May combine two claims.

Under four task phrasings the cue ranking is stable, but the strong cues drift more than for GPT-4o.

“Under four task phrasings the cue ranking is stable, but the strong cues drift more than for GPT-4o (Appendix J).”

• cites Appendix JNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The cued-first crossing is uniformly higher than the cued-second crossing, adding a real per-trial advantage, while the two orders preserve the cue ordering and bracket the counterbalanced pooled value.

“The cued-first crossing is uniformly higher than the cued-second crossing-position adds a real per-trial advantage-but the two are consistent: they preserve the cue ordering and bracket the counterbalanced pooled value.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The LLM judge (Claude Opus) reliably scores persuasion dimensions, so its scores validly identify cue presence.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The API models' choices in the forced-choice task are a valid proxy for AI shopper behavior in real shopping contexts.

May combine two claims.

Under vision, primacy bias becomes near-deterministic: at equal price the agent chooses the first option in 100% of trials, so P(choose cued) is 0.50 for every pair by construction, relaxing only as price diverges; that it responds to price at all confirms it reads the rendered cards.

“Under vision the primacy bias becomes near-deterministic: at equal price the agent chooses the first option in 100% of trials, so 𝑃 (choose cued) is 0.50 for every pair by construction, relaxing only as price diverges (Table 23); that it responds to price at all confirms it reads the rendered cards.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The API models' choices in the forced-choice task are a valid proxy for AI shopper behavior in real shopping contexts.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Four cues (strong, very strong, and length-matched social proof, and authority) are chosen in every equal-price trial in both categories.

“Four cues (strong, very strong, and length-matched social proof, and authority) are chosen in every equal-price trial in both categories.”

May combine two claims.

Jev's prices depend on its input format: an earlier run that passed the same cards as a structured object with slot-named options gave strong social proof 10.8% on headphones and more than 26% on coffee machines, against 2.0 and 1.6% with the chat prompt.

“Second, Jev's prices depend on its input format: an earlier run that passed the same cards as a structured object with slot-named options gave strong social proof 10.8% on headphones and more than 26% on coffee machines, against 2.0 and 1.6% with the chat prompt.”

May combine two claims.

Jev's social-proof series switches on only at the very strong claim (0.5, 0.0, 2.0, and 15.4% on headphones, against GPT-4o's 0.7, 1.3, 12.9, and 21.4%); authority is worth little (1.5 and 1.2% against 19.8 and 21.6%), and gain/loss framing nothing.

“Jev's social-proof series switches on only at the very strong claim (0.5, 0.0, 2.0, and 15.4% on headphones, against GPT-4o's 0.7, 1.3, 12.9, and 21.4%); authority is worth little (1.5 and 1.2% against 19.8 and 21.6%), and gain/loss framing nothing.”

May combine two claims.

The off-domain sentence 'recommended by audio experts' on a coffee machine is never chosen at equal price (0 of 144 trials), whereas GPT-4o treats it as nearly inert (1.9%).

“The off-domain sentence”

May combine two claims.

Raw authority (1.6-19.8%) and gain/loss PEs (0-22.3%, beyond 110% on Nova Micro) look wildly model-specific.

“Raw authority (1.6-19.8%)and gain/loss PEs (0-22.3%,beyond 110% on Nova Micro) look wildly model-specific.”

May combine two claims.

Across the battery, the agent chooses the first option in 56.3% of trials (n = 14,976), rising to approximately 65% in low-signal conditions (one-sided cues with a PE below 3%).

“Across the battery, it chooses the first option in 56.3% of trials (𝑛 = 14,976), rising to ≈ 65% in low-signal conditions (one-sided cues with a PE below 3%).”

May combine two claims.

Combining cues is consistent with additivity: no interaction between cues was detectable.

“Combining cues, by contrast, is consistent with additivity (Section 4.3, Appendix H): no interaction between cues was detectable”

• cites Appendix HNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The position channel is worth at most 3.2% on the price-sensitive models, 14.0% on GPT-4o mini, and beyond 80% on the price-blind Nova Micro and Llama-3.1-8B.

“It is worth at most 3.2% on the price-sensitive models, 14.0% on GPT-4o mini, and beyond 80% on the price-blind Nova Micro and Llama-3.1-8B(Appendix D).”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

The length and presence controls do not transfer: the 'neutral' identification-code sentence is itself dispreferred by Jev (presence control, base rates 0.32 and 0.17), so the length-matched social-proof condition (16.6 and 19.6%) exceeds social proof alone (2.0 and 1.6%) instead of isolating its content.

“First, the length and presence controls do not transfer: the”

May combine two claims.

For the strong social-proof cue, the six per-pair price-equivalents are 10.2, 14.6, 10.0, 19.1, 11.2, and beyond 26 (no crossing), with a pooled value of 12.9%, showing real product heterogeneity around a stable pooled value.

“For the strong social-proof cue the six per-pair price-equivalents are (GPT-4o, model-free, 𝑁 = 24 per price point): In-ear ANC ($89.99)10.2; On-ear ($79.99)14.6; Over-ear ANC ($129.99)10.0; Over-ear premium ($199.99)19.1; Sport earbuds ($59.99)11.2; Wired studio ($149.99)beyond 26 (no crossing); pooled 12.9%-real product heterogeneity around a stable pooled value”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The LLM judge (Claude Opus) reliably scores persuasion dimensions, so its scores validly identify cue presence.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The API models' choices in the forced-choice task are a valid proxy for AI shopper behavior in real shopping contexts.

May combine two claims.

For Nova Micro, censored at 26%, extending the cue sweep to +110% shows Nova Micro keeps choosing the cued product throughout, on a flat plateau near 0.7 that never crosses 0.5 even at more than double the price.

“for Nova Micro, censored at 26%, we extend the cue sweep to +110%, and Nova Micro keeps choosing the cued product throughout, on a flat plateau near 0.7 that never crosses 0.5 even at more than double the price.”

May combine two claims.

Models that do not respond to price even at large premiums have unidentified price-equivalents and are reported observationally, and several cues are censored at the top of the sweep (their true premia are lower bounds).

“Models that do not respond to price even at large premiums have unidentified price-equivalents and are reported observationally, and several cues are censored at the top of the sweep (their true premia are lower bounds).”

May combine two claims.

Weak and moderate social-proof claims sit near zero, and the premium switches on only at the strong claim.

“Weak and moderate claims sit near zero, and the premium switches on only at the strong claim.”

May combine two claims.

At +10%, GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet, and Llama-3.3-70B almost never keep the pricier of two identical products, whereas Nova Micro does so about half the time.

“At +10%, GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet, and Llama-3.3-70Balmost never keep the pricier of two identical products, whereas Nova Micro does so about half the time (column 𝑝 ↑ ; Appendix E).”

May combine two claims.

Holding a product's facts and cues fixed, twelve truthful rewrites of one full description move GPT-4o's PE from 2.3% to 8.0% (disjoint intervals, single pair, N=30 per price point, logistic estimator).

“Holding a product's facts and cues fixed, twelve truthful rewrites of one full description (strong social proof and scarcity woven in, LLMgenerated) move GPT-4o's PE from 2.3% to 8.0% (disjoint intervals, single pair, 𝑁 =30 per price point, logistic estimator).”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Stable audit environment: fixed model snapshot, prompt, decoding, and card template.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Explicit comparator: the comparator content c0 is part of the estimand.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Joint design control: the four (T,R) cells carry weight 1/4, exactly balanced in our data.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Single crossing: S_Q is weakly decreasing over the search domain.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Support: the price sweep brackets the crossing; otherwise a bound is reported.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Local smoothness: the curve is approximately linear between the two bracketing grid points.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Stable repeated sampling: no model drift during collection (Appendix O).
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Explicit population: the product distribution Q is part of the estimand.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Forced-choice scope: the threshold pertains to the stated two-option protocol.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Relative-price scale: PE is a proportional premium on the reference price.

May combine two claims.

The ordering of the four social-proof intensities is preserved across all four phrasings; the broader ranking is mostly stable but not exact-strong social proof (12.0% at v0) and gain/loss framing (17.2% at v0) exchange rank at v1 (17.7 vs. 14.0), and the neutral sentence drifts to 4.5% at v1 rather than sitting at the floor-and absolute magnitudes of the strong cues vary by a few points-up to ≈ 8

“The ordering of the four social-proof intensities is preserved across all four phrasings; the broader ranking is mostly stable but not exact-strong social proof (12.0% at v0) and gain/loss framing (17.2% at v0) exchange rank at v1 (17.7 vs. 14.0), and the neutral sentence drifts to 4.5% at v1 rather than sitting at the floor-and absolute magnitudes of the strong cues vary by a few points-up to ≈ 8”

• cites Table 19Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Figure 4Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Under vision the bias becomes near-deterministic, which prevents identifying an image cue's PE.

“Under vision the bias becomes near-deterministic, which prevents identifying an image cue's PE (Appendix M).”

May combine two claims.

The no-interaction result holds on the log-odds scale (no term survives Holm correction) and on the price scale (contrasts within a few points, all CIs spanning zero).

“This holds on the log-odds scale , no term survives Holm correction [14]) and on the price scale (contrasts within a few points, all CIs spanning zero).”

• cites [14]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

No term in the length-matched 2^3 factorial is significant after Holm correction on the log-odds scale, and every price-scale contrast is within a few points with a CI spanning zero; combined influence is consistent with additivity at our precision.

“No term is significant after Holm correction on the log-odds scale, and every price-scale contrast is within a few points with a CI spanning zero: combined influence is consistent with additivity at our precision.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The LLM judge (Claude Opus) reliably scores persuasion dimensions, so its scores validly identify cue presence.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The API models' choices in the forced-choice task are a valid proxy for AI shopper behavior in real shopping contexts.

May combine two claims.

At equal price, GPT-4o and GPT-4o mini prefer the scarcity-marked product (base rates 0.95 and 0.88), whereas Claude Sonnet finds it aversive (0.19, PE at most 0).

“Yet at equal price, GPT-4o and GPT-4o mini prefer the scarcity-marked product (base rates 0.95 and 0.88), whereas Claude Sonnet finds it aversive (0.19, PE at most 0).”

May combine two claims.

The weak, moderate, and strong social-proof intervals do not overlap on headphones, so the steps are separated in the price metric, not merely ordered by point estimates.

“The steps are separated in the price metric, not merely ordered by point estimates: the weak, moderate, and strong social-proof intervals do not overlap on headphones (Appendix C).”

May combine two claims.

Strong social proof and gain/loss exchange rank under one phrasing, and strong-cue premia drift by up to ≈ 8 points.

“Strong social proof and gain/loss, however, exchange rank under one phrasing, and strong-cue premia drift by up to ≈ 8 points (Appendix J).”

• cites Appendix JNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Priced, these four cues span 1.5-16.6% (headphones) and 1.2-19.6% (coffee machines).

“Priced, they nevertheless span 1.5-16.6%(headphones) and 1.2-19.6%(coffee machines).”

May combine two claims.

Authority commands approximately 19.8%, comparable to the strongest social-proof cue, and gain/loss framing approximately 22%, whereas scarcity and number-preserving reformatting sit near the floor.

“Authority commands ≈ 19.8%, comparable to the strongest social-proof cue, and gain/loss framing ≈ 22%, whereas scarcity and number-preserving reformatting sit near the floor.”

May combine two claims.

Scarcity commands a price-equivalent of only 1.6% (CI [1.4, 1.9]), below 3%, the level treated as the instrument's practical resolution.

“Yet it commands a price-equivalent of only 1.6% (CI [1.4,1.9]), below 3%, the level we treat as the instrument's practical resolution.”

May combine two claims.

The same instrument also prices the position channel, which the platform rather than the seller controls.

“The same instrument also prices this channel, which the platform rather than the seller controls.”

May combine two claims.

In the perception probe, the optimised image is rated slightly more premium than the standard image, so the manipulation is perceptible; yet its price-equivalent cannot be identified, because primacy saturates the response channel in the small-premium regime that matters for elicitation.

“In the perception probe the optimised image is rated slightly more premium than the standard image, so the manipulation is perceptible; yet its price-equivalent cannot be identified, because primacy saturates the response channel in the small-premium regime that matters for elicitation.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The API models' choices in the forced-choice task are a valid proxy for AI shopper behavior in real shopping contexts.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

PE is a formally defined, policy-conditioned parity threshold that makes very different cues comparable.

“a formally defined, policy-conditioned parity threshold that makes very different cues comparable.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Visual Persuasion shows that image edits steer vision-language model choices.

“Visual Persuasion shows that image edits steer vision-language model choices [6]”

• cites [6]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Chu and Hou map an authority cue's breakthrough rate to an equivalent rating gain, percentage price discount, or review-count multiplier.

“In concurrent work, Chu and Hou map an authority cue's breakthrough rate to an equivalent rating gain, percentage price discount, or review-count multiplier [7].”

• cites [7]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Counterbalance position and cue target within every (pair, price-point) cell; a first-option lean otherwise leaks into the estimate, and the pooled value is the crossing of the averaged curves, not the mean of the per-order crossings.

“(1) Counterbalance position and cue target within every (pair, price-point) cell (Section 3.2).A first-option lean of the size we document (Section 4.5) otherwise leaks into the estimate, and the pooled value is the crossing of the averaged curves, not the mean of the per-order crossings.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Price-equivalent auditing turns qualitative susceptibility into a single monetary number and places text and framing cues on one comparable scale.

“Price-equivalent auditing turns qualitative susceptibility into a single monetary number and places text and framing cues on one comparable scale.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Neutral and vacuous sentences test content-free additions.

“Neutral and vacuous sentences test content-free additions.”

May combine two claims.

The resolving power comes from the price intervention, not from PE per se: any audit that adds a common cardinal axis escapes the ceiling, whereas a single equal-price rate cannot.

“The resolving power comes from the price intervention, not from PE per se: any audit that adds a common cardinal axis escapes the ceiling, whereas a single equal-price rate cannot.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In a length control, a cue competes against a neutral sentence of matched length, which separates content from the mere presence of an added sentence.

“In a length control, a cue competes against a neutral sentence of matched length, which separates content from the mere presence of an added sentence.”

May combine two claims.

The 26% ceiling is an empirical bracket, not a fixed constant; it sits above the largest price-equivalents observed, so the crossing falls inside the window for all but a few cues.

“The 26% ceiling is an empirical bracket, not a fixed constant.It sits above the largest price-equivalents we observe (the strongest cues cross near 13-22%), so the crossing falls inside the window for all but a few cues.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

If the curve never reaches 0.5 within the sweep, PE is right-censored to a lower bound.

“If the curve never reaches 0.5 within the sweep, PE is right-censored to a lower bound ( †).”

May combine two claims.

Strong cues saturate choice near 100% and become indistinguishable, and a counterbalanced first-option bias averages to a 50% rate that looks like indifference.

“Strong cues saturate the choice near 100% and become indistinguishable, and a counterbalanced first-option bias averages to a 50% rate that looks like indifference.”

May combine two claims.

Within every (pair, pricepoint) cell the paper counterbalances both position and cue target, with six calls in each of the four target-position states per cell, ruling out slot-and product-identity confounds.

“Within every (pair, pricepoint) cell we therefore counterbalance both position (the cued product is first in exactly half of trials) and cue target (the cue sits on product A and B equally often), with six calls in each of the four target-position states per cell, ruling out slot-and product-identity confounds.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

A stronger willingness-to-pay reading would require a specified user, a budget constraint, and a utility model with a truth-inducing payoff, as in discrete-choice WTP estimation.

“A stronger willingness-to-pay reading would require a specified user, a budget constraint, and a utility model with a truth-inducing payoff, as in discrete-choice WTP estimation [23].”

• cites [23]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The paper treats the possibility that a model reads price as a quality signal as a matter of interpretation rather than a design confound.

“We treat this as a matter of interpretation rather than a design confound.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

ABxLab manipulates prices, ratings, product order, and textual nudges across multiple LLM agents and finds large and predictable shifts in choice.

“Closest to our setting, ABxLab manipulates prices, ratings, product order, and textual nudges across multiple LLM agents and finds large and predictable shifts in choice [5].”

• cites [5]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

If a cue is already dispreferred at equal price (base rate <0.5), the paper reports PE ≤ 0 and flags it, with the base rate giving the identified sign.

“If a cue is already dispreferred at equal price (equal-price choice rate, hereafter base rate, <0.5), we report PE ≤ 0 and flag it ( ‡), and the base rate gives the identified sign.”

May combine two claims.

Prior work establishes that LLM shopping agents are susceptible to seller-controlled cues and that presentation can move them.

“Prior work establishes that LLM shopping agents are susceptible to such cues and that presentation can move them [5,6,11].”

• cites [5]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [6]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [11]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The position-driven Llama-3.1-8B is excluded from cross-model claims, leaving the six task-engaged models those claims rest on.

“The position-driven Llama-3.1-8B is additionally excluded from cross-model claims, which leaves the six task-engaged models those claims rest on.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The primary estimator is model-free and locates the point where the pooled P(choose cued) curve crosses 0.5 by linear interpolation between the two neighbouring price points.

“Our primary estimator is model-free.It locates the point where the pooled 𝑃 (choose cued) curve crosses 0.5 by linear interpolation between the two neighbouring price points (details in Appendix B).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Bias Beware frames cognitive-bias cues as black-box attacks on recommender systems.

“Bias Beware frames cognitive-bias cues as black-box attacks on recommender systems [11]”

• cites [11]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

PE is conditional on the cue contrast, audited products, presentation-policy weights, model, prompt, and decoding configuration, and should not generally be interpreted as individual indifference or willingness to pay.

“It is conditional on the cue contrast, audited products, presentation-policy weights, model, prompt, and decoding configuration; it should not generally be interpreted as individual indifference or willingness to pay (Appendix B).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Across 126,000 conversations, prompts instantiating seven of Cialdini's principles increased pooled partial-or-full compliance from 35.3% to 51.3% across three frontier models from different developers.

“Across 126,000 conversations, prompts instantiating seven of Cialdini's principles increased pooled partial-or-full compliance from 35.3% to 51.3% across three frontier models from different developers, a susceptibility the authors describe as parahuman [20].”

• cites [20]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

A position-controlled logistic fit and a price×position interaction check agree with the model-free values within about 3 points wherever a crossing is identified.

“A position-controlled logistic fit and a price×position interaction check agree with the model-free values within about 3 points wherever a crossing is identified (Appendix D).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The paper varies price within a single trial across two fully specified, visible product cards; the reference product's price is displayed and held constant, so the swept gap is the only quantity that moves.

“We vary price within a single trial across two fully specified, visible product cards.The reference product's price is displayed and held constant, so the swept gap is the only quantity that moves.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Framing pairs hold information constant and vary only its form, so any premium reflects form rather than content.

“Framing pairs hold information constant and vary only its form (percentage vs. fraction, a rescaled rating, and a gain/loss framing), so any premium reflects form rather than content.”

May combine two claims.

Both information-bearing cues and information-preserving framing matter for auditing what a seller can change, even though they are interpreted differently.

“Both matter for auditing what a seller can change, even though they are interpreted differently.”

May combine two claims.

In Chu and Hou, cue and price are evaluated in separate experiments, and the price equivalent is obtained by linearly interpolating a five-level price grid rather than by letting price and cue compete within the same trial.

“There, however, cue and price are evaluated in separate experiments, and the price equivalent is obtained by linearly interpolating a five-level price grid rather than by letting price and cue compete within the same trial.”

• cites [7]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Authority, social proof, and scarcity each significantly increased compliance in that study, showing that these cue families act on LLMs and not only on humans.

“authority, social proof, and scarcity each significantly increased compliance, showing that these cue families act on LLMs and not only on the humans they were formulated for.”

• cites [20]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Always run the cue-free price-only control alongside the sweep; PE combines cue pull with price sensitivity (under the single-index model exactly their ratio), so a raw magnitude is uninterpretable on its own, and a cross-model comparison of raw PE compares two things at once.

“(3) Always run the cue-free price-only control alongside the sweep.PE combines cue pull with price sensitivity (under the single-index model of Appendix B it is exactly their ratio), so a raw magnitude is uninterpretable on its own, and a cross-model comparison of raw PE compares two things at once (Appendix E).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

WTP elicited from GPT-3 can be of realistic magnitude relative to human estimates.

“WTP elicited from GPT-3 can be of realistic magnitude relative to human estimates [3]”

• cites [3]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Agents over-select the first-presented option, which near the parity crossing can bias PE.

“Agents over-select the first-presented option (Section 4.5), which near the parity crossing can bias PE.”

May combine two claims.

Demand curves elicited from GPT-3 are broadly downward-sloping but generally not monotone in price.

“Demand curves elicited from GPT-3 are broadly downward-sloping but generally not monotone in price [3].”

• cites [3]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Because the estimate is read from a prompt, the paper re-measures a cue subset under four semantically equivalent task paraphrases.

“Because the estimate is read from a prompt, we re-measure a cue subset under four semantically equivalent task paraphrases (Appendix J).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In a counterbalanced, position-controlled forced choice, raising the cued product's price until it is chosen only half the time yields the cue's price-equivalent: the price premium that just offsets the cue's pull on the agent's recommendation.

“In a counterbalanced, position-controlled forced choice, we raise the cued product's price until it is chosen only half the time.We call that premium the cue's price-equivalent (PE): the price premium that just offsets the cue's pull on the agent's recommendation.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Make censoring explicit: a cue dispreferred at equal price is floor-censored; a curve that never crosses within the sweep is right-censored; a censored cell is a bound, not a value, and must not enter a ranking as one.

“(4) Make censoring explicit.A cue dispreferred at equal price is floor-censored ( ‡); a curve that never crosses within the sweep is right-censored ( †).A censored cell is a bound, not a value, and must not enter a ranking as one (Section 3.1).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Reusens et al. infer an LLM's WTP for travel attributes and compare it to human estimates.

“Reusens et al. infer an LLM's WTP for travel attributes and compare it to human estimates [23].”

• cites [23]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Read PE as ordinal-to-interval: rankings and coarse magnitude bands survive task rephrasing and re-sampling; exact percentages drift by a few points across phrasings and vary widely across product pairs.

“(5) Read PE as ordinal-to-interval.Rankings and coarse magnitude bands survive task rephrasing and re-sampling; exact percentages drift by a few points across phrasings and vary widely across product pairs (Section 4.6, Appendix F and Appendix J).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Cues are single sentences appended to a product's neutral description; price, rating, and specifications stay untouched, so a cue competes only through its wording.

“Cues are single sentences appended to a product's neutral description.Price, rating, and specifications stay untouched, so a cue competes only through its wording.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Because the first-option bias can look like indifference, it is a caution for any choice-based evaluation of agents, including LLM-as-judge.

“Because this bias can look like indifference, it is a caution for any choice-based evaluation of agents, including LLM-as-judge (Section 4).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

For 95% CIs the paper uses a nonparametric bootstrap resampled by product pair.

“For 95% CIs we use a nonparametric bootstrap resampled by product pair [10].”

• cites [10]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

PE audits seller-controlled influence relative to price and does not by itself show that a cue induces an irrational bias.

“PE audits seller-controlled influence relative to price and does not by itself show that a cue induces an irrational bias.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Each neutral description was checked for persuasive content by an LLM judge on nine persuasion dimensions for headphones and by a manual read of all pairs.

“Each neutral description was checked for persuasive content by an LLM judge on nine persuasion dimensions (headphones) and by a manual read of all pairs (Appendix N).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Altering only an item's title can raise its exposure in LLM-based recommenders while leaving overall recommendation performance largely unchanged.

“altering only an item's title can raise its exposure in LLM-based recommenders while leaving overall recommendation performance largely unchanged [31].”

• cites [31]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Nova Pro is dropped for a high non-response rate, leaving the seven models of the main dataset over which aggregate figures are reported.

“Nova Pro is dropped for a high non-response rate, which leaves the seven models of the main dataset over which we report aggregate figures (e.g. the headline trial count).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

PE auditing is framed as a reusable auditing protocol with three components: a counterbalanced, position-controlled price sweep yielding PE; a cue-free price-sensitivity control calibrating cross-model comparison; and a primacy diagnostic guarding choice-based readings.

“We frame PE auditing as a reusable auditing protocol with three components: a counterbalanced, position-controlled price sweep that yields the price-equivalent (Section 3.1); a cue-free price-sensitivity control that calibrates cross-model comparison (Section 4.4, Appendix E); and a primacy diagnostic that guards choice-based readings (Section 3.2, Section 4.5).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The divergence between choice and price echoes a long-documented human dissociation between choice and valuation, in which the two elicitations weight attributes differently and can even reverse.

“This divergence between choice and price echoes a longdocumented human dissociation between choice and valuation, in which the two elicitations weight attributes differently and can even reverse [17,29].”

• cites [17]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [29]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Optimising content for generative engines has been formalised as Generative Engine Optimization.

“Optimising content for generative engines has already been formalised as Generative Engine Optimization [1].”

• cites [1]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The protocol applies unchanged to any seller-controlled intervention, model, or category.

“The protocol applies unchanged to any seller-controlled intervention, model, or category; we instantiate it here on marketing cues across two categories and seven models (Table 1).”

May combine two claims.

The estimator needs no parametric form, which matters because cues routinely saturate the equal-price choice (P=1), distorting a global logistic fit.

“The estimator also needs no parametric form.This matters because cues routinely saturate the equal-price choice (𝑃=1), which distorts a global logistic fit.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Raw PE must be read alongside price sensitivity and therefore resists a single cross-model ranking.

“It reports each model's cue-price profile rather than a single score, because raw PE must be read alongside price sensitivity and therefore resists a single cross-model ranking (Section 4.4).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

In a presence control, a neutral sentence competes against a second neutral sentence and should command no premium.

“In a presence control, that neutral sentence competes against a second neutral sentence and should command no premium.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Social proof comes in four intensities, which serve as a dose-response calibration.

“Social proof comes in four intensities, which serve as a dose-response calibration.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Jev's interface fixes the output format, so it answers through its choice API rather than a free-text reply, and it has no temperature; its choice rate is largely the share of the counterbalanced layouts a card wins.

“Jev's interface fixes the output format, so it answers through its choice API rather than a free-text reply, and it has no temperature; its choice rate is largely the share of the counterbalanced layouts a card wins.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

A cue can be broad and shallow (scarcity) or narrow and deep (gain/loss framing).

“A cue can be broad and shallow (scarcity) or narrow and deep (gain/loss framing).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The headline trial count gives high precision with respect to each model's stochastic sampling within a condition.

“The headline trial count gives high precision with respect to each model's stochastic sampling within a condition.”

May combine two claims.

This is a best-of-N selection with an out-of-sample confirmation that guards against the winner's curse.

“This is a best-of-𝑁 selection with an out-of-sample confirmation that guards against the winner's curse.”

May combine two claims.

The audit measures susceptibility under clean conditions rather than predicting behaviour in a live shopping environment.

“It therefore measures susceptibility under clean conditions rather than predicting behaviour in a live shopping environment, where cues compete with search, reviews, and multistep navigation.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The core cue set is run on the seven main-dataset models, with Nova Pro excluded for a 21% non-response rate.

“We run the core cue set on the seven main-dataset models (Nova Pro is excluded for a 21% non-response rate).”

May combine two claims.

The social-proof levels co-vary wording, customer count, and superlatives, so the series is an intensity gradient as a seller would write it, not a single-factor dose.

“The levels co-vary wording, customer count, and superlatives, so the series is an intensity gradient as a seller would write it, not a single-factor dose.”

May combine two claims.

A price-equivalent rises with a cue's pull and falls with the model's sensitivity to price.

“A price-equivalent rises with a cue's pull and falls with the model's sensitivity to price”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Every cue here is a single, factually plausible sentence stipulated true of the product.

“Every cue here is a single, factually plausible sentence stipulated true of the product.”

May combine two claims.

Because each condition contains only six product pairs, the cluster bootstrap generalizes over six units, and a percentile interval on six clusters can understate uncertainty.

“Because each condition contains only six product pairs, the cluster bootstrap generalizes over six units, and a percentile interval on six clusters can understate uncertainty [4, Sec.VI].”

• cites [4]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Counterbalancing removes the first-option lean from the pooled estimate, and a price×position test finds no distortion.

“Counterbalancing removes this lean from the pooled estimate, and a price×position test finds no distortion (Appendix D).”

May combine two claims.

For weak cues, the order dependence is large relative to the pooled value, so the policy-level PE should be read as a balanced-order summary rather than a position-free cue strength.

“For weak cues this order dependence is large relative to the pooled value, so the policy-level PE should be read as a balanced-order summary rather than a position-free cue strength.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The LLM judge (Claude Opus) reliably scores persuasion dimensions, so its scores validly identify cue presence.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The API models' choices in the forced-choice task are a valid proxy for AI shopper behavior in real shopping contexts.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

A pooled PE is the crossing of the averaged curve and need not equal the median of the pair-level crossings.

“A pooled PE is the crossing of the averaged curve and need not equal the median of the pair-level crossings (Appendix B).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

We neither fabricate false claims nor optimize toward deception.

“We neither fabricate false claims nor optimize toward deception”

May combine two claims.

The agents' susceptibility is selective and does not mirror the profile that classic persuasion accounts would predict.

“Second, the agents' susceptibility is selective and does not mirror the profile that classic persuasion accounts would predict.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The composition test covers one model and one cue per family.

“The composition test covers one model and one cue per family.”

May combine two claims.

The first-option bias matters in itself: any method that reads preferences off agent choices, including LLM-as-judge evaluation, must control option order or risk reporting position as preference.

“The bias nonetheless matters in itself.Any method that reads preferences off agent choices, including LLM-as-judge evaluation, must control option order or risk reporting position as preference.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The paper reports such models observationally rather than ranking a censored number.

“We report such models observationally rather than ranking a censored number.”

May combine two claims.

A cross-model audit should not be presumed to transfer, and raw PE must be read alongside price sensitivity, not as cue strength.

“The upshot is that a cross-model audit should not be presumed to transfer, and raw PE must be read alongside price sensitivity, not as cue strength.”

May combine two claims.

Counterbalancing does not mean averaging the two crossings; the pooled PE is the crossing of the averaged position-specific curves, which in general differs from the mean of their crossings.

“Counterbalancing does not mean averaging the two crossings.The pooled PE is the crossing of the averaged position-specific curves, which in general differs from the mean of their crossings.”

May combine two claims.

The audited models are a diverse convenience sample rather than a random draw, so claims hold for these models, not for 'LLMs' in general.

“Finally, the audited models are a diverse convenience sample rather than a random draw, so claims hold for these models, not for”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Reading the equal-price base rate as a validity gate, the paper reports over the six task-engaged models.

“Reading the equal-price base rate as a validity gate, we report over the six task-engaged models.”

May combine two claims.

Because raw magnitudes must be read alongside price sensitivity rather than as cue strength, the response resists a single cross-model ranking.

“Because raw magnitudes must be read alongside price sensitivity rather than as cue strength, the response resists a single cross-model ranking.”

May combine two claims.

A PE combines a cue's pull with the model's price sensitivity, and price sensitivity itself varies sharply.

“A PE, however, combines a cue's pull with the model's price sensitivity, and price sensitivity itself varies sharply.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

It is further shaped by a strong primacy bias that any choice-based evaluation must control.

“It is further shaped by a strong primacy bias that any choice-based evaluation must control.”

May combine two claims.

The scarcity result departs from scarcity's potency on human shoppers, a contrast with the persuasion literature, not a measured human baseline, and tested in a single formulation.

“This departs from scarcity's potency on human shoppers (a contrast with the persuasion literature, not a measured human baseline, and tested in a single formulation).”

May combine two claims.

The two quantities measure different things: how often a cue wins when price is tied, and how much price it can absorb.

“The two quantities measure different things: how often a cue wins when price is tied, and how much price it can absorb.”

May combine two claims.

Because GPT-4o is so price-sensitive, its double-digit PEs reflect a genuinely strong cue pull that overcomes a steep price response-not price-blindness.

“Because GPT-4o is so price-sensitive, its double-digit PEs reflect a genuinely strong cue pull that overcomes a steep price response-not price-blindness.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Each construct in the main battery is tested in a single formulation, in particular one scarcity sentence.

“Each construct in the main battery is also tested in a single formulation, in particular one scarcity sentence.”

May combine two claims.

PE is ordinal-to-interval: rankings and coarse bands are trustworthy, exact percentages are not.

“PE is therefore ordinal-to-interval: rankings and coarse bands are trustworthy, exact percentages are not.”

May combine two claims.

The per-pair spread (10 to over 26%) is genuine product heterogeneity, which the pooled estimand averages over by design.

“The per-pair spread (10 to over 26%) is genuine product heterogeneity, which the pooled estimand averages over by design.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The LLM judge (Claude Opus) reliably scores persuasion dimensions, so its scores validly identify cue presence.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The API models' choices in the forced-choice task are a valid proxy for AI shopper behavior in real shopping contexts.

May combine two claims.

Wording is a real lever, but several times smaller than the choice of cue (0.7-21.4%).

“Wording is thus a real lever, but several times smaller than the choice of cue (0.7-21.4%).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The study uses no human subjects and no personal data.

“The study uses no human subjects and no personal data.”

May combine two claims.

On this scale, the agents' response is selective, not a simple copy of the human profile, and partly shared across models.

“On this scale, the agents' response is selective, not a simple copy of the human profile, and partly shared across models.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Jev received the chat models' prompt verbatim, counterbalanced as in Section 3.2 (24 queries per pair and price point, 49,824 queries, none failed).

“Jev received the chat models' prompt verbatim, counterbalanced as in Section 3.2 (24 queries per pair and price point, 49,824 queries, none failed).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

With only six clusters, the pair-clustered 95% bootstrap intervals are wide and, near zero, lumpy; they are coarse bands rather than precise limits.

“With only six clusters the intervals are wide and, near zero, lumpy.They are coarse bands rather than precise limits (Appendix F).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Where pooled and median diverge, pairs with steep curves cross early and pull the pooled crossing down; the pooled value answers the policy-level question over the product mixture, while the pair-level distribution shows how that threshold varies across products.

“Where pooled and median diverge (e.g.Claude Sonnet, strong social proof: pooled 1.8%, pair median 10.0%), pairs with steep curves cross early and pull the pooled crossing down; the pooled value answers the policy-level question over the product mixture, the pair-level distribution how that threshold varies across products.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The LLM judge (Claude Opus) reliably scores persuasion dimensions, so its scores validly identify cue presence.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The API models' choices in the forced-choice task are a valid proxy for AI shopper behavior in real shopping contexts.

May combine two claims.

Composition is tested with a length-matched 2^3 factorial; three cross-family cues are each present or absent in a fixed slot that otherwise holds a neutral filler, so sentence count is constant and the length/presence confound cancels in every interaction contrast.

“We test composition with a length-matched 2 3 factorial.Three cross-family cues (social proof, authority, scarcity) are each present or absent in a fixed slot that otherwise holds a neutral filler.Sentence count is therefore constant, and the length/presence confound cancels in every interaction contrast (Appendix H).”

May combine two claims.

Two categories give initial cross-category evidence, but both are consumer-electronics durable goods, so generalization to structurally different domains (e.g., services such as travel or lodging) is untested.

“Two categories give initial cross-category evidence, but both are consumer-electronics durable goods, so generalization to structurally different domains (e.g., services such as travel or lodging) is untested.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The saturated equal-price rate cannot make this choice.

“The saturated equal-price rate cannot make this choice.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The fixed seed pins only stimulus construction and counterbalancing, not model sampling; for closed APIs this does not guarantee identical outputs, so per-trial logs are released and results are reported as distributions over N repeats rather than single deterministic outputs.

“Our fixed seed therefore pins only stimulus construction and counterbalancing, not model sampling; for closed APIs this does not guarantee identical outputs, so we release per-trial logs and report results as distributions over 𝑁 repeats rather than single deterministic outputs.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Neither the OpenAI nor the Bedrock calls pass a provider-side seed.

“Neither the OpenAI nor the Bedrock calls pass a provider-side seed.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The cue-free price-only control was gathered eight days later; its cross-model use as a price-sensitivity reference therefore carries a date offset of eight days.

“The one exception is the cue-free price-only control, gathered eight days later; its cross-model use as a price-sensitivity reference therefore carries a date offset of eight days.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The first author read all twelve pairs in both categories and checked them for persuasive wording and for balanced wording between the two sides; all twelve pairs passed.

“In addition, the first author read all twelve pairs in both categories and checked them for persuasive wording (social proof, scarcity, authority, evaluative wording, superlatives, embedded price or rating) and for balanced wording between the two sides.All twelve pairs passed.”

May combine two claims.

On the reference model (GPT-4o) all cue conditions and their controls were collected within each category in a single same-day session (headphones on 17 July, coffee machines on 19 July), so condition is not confounded with collection date for the within-model cue comparisons.

“on the reference model (GPT-4o) all cue conditions and their controls were collected within each category in a single same-day session (headphones on 17 July, coffee machines on 19 July), so condition is not confounded with collection date for the within-model cue comparisons.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

After the audit, the judge rubric was extended by a tenth dimension (normative/eco valence), because the judge had passed a sustainability-coded sentence that nonetheless commanded a premium; this extension was not used to re-score the stimuli.

“After the audit, the judge rubric was extended by a tenth dimension (normative/eco valence), because the judge had passed a sustainability-coded sentence that nonetheless commanded a premium.This extension was not used to re-score the stimuli.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The LLM judge (Claude Opus) reliably scores persuasion dimensions, so its scores validly identify cue presence.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Sampling temperature 0.7; N=24 trials per (pair, price-point) (N=12 for robustness paraphrases); premium levels 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 18, and 26%, extended to 60% for additivity; bootstrap of 2000 resamples clustered by product pair; fixed random seed; position and cue-target counterbalancing within each (pair, price-point) cell.

“Sampling temperature 0.7; 𝑁 =24 trials per (pair, price-point) (𝑁 =12 for the robustness paraphrases); premium levels 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 18, and 26%, extended to 60% for the additivity runs; bootstrap of 2000 resamples clustered by product pair; fixed random seed; position and cue-target counterbalancing within each (pair, price-point) cell.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

We accessed the OpenAI models via the rolling aliases gpt-4o and gpt-4o-mini rather than pinned dated snapshots-a reproducibility caveat, since the served snapshot can change over time.

“We accessed the OpenAI models via the rolling aliases gpt-4o and gpt-4o-mini rather than pinned dated snapshots-a reproducibility caveat, since the served snapshot can change over time”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The main audit is 113,472 trials over 107 conditions.

“The main audit is 113,472 trials over 107 conditions.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Conditions were collected in blocks-one run per condition-rather than temporally interleaved, so a change in the served model during collection could in principle confound with condition.

“Conditions were collected in blocks-one run per condition-rather than temporally interleaved, so a change in the served model during collection could in principle confound with condition.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Structural checks additionally enforce identical specifications, identical price and rating, and matched description length.

“Structural checks additionally enforce identical specifications, identical price and rating, and matched description length.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Nova Pro's 21% non-response rate is why it is excluded; all other models parse at ≥99.9%.

“Nova Pro's 21% non-response rate is why it is excluded; all other models parse at ≥ 99.9%.”

May combine two claims.

When option-order choice is near-deterministic, the policy average is pinned at 0.50 and PE is not identified; this is a boundary case of the counterbalanced policy estimand, not evidence of a null.

“This is a boundary case of our counterbalanced (50/50) policy estimand (Section 3.1)-when option-order choice is near-deterministic, the policy average is pinned at 0.50 and PE is not identified-not evidence of a null; a position-free paradigm (single-product valuation, or an image-only 2AFC) is required to estimate an image premium.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The API models' choices in the forced-choice task are a valid proxy for AI shopper behavior in real shopping contexts.

May combine two claims.

Within a pair, price, rating, rating count, and specifications are identical, and the two neutral descriptions are length-matched (word count within ±15%).

“Within a pair, price, rating, rating count, and specifications are identical, and the two neutral descriptions are length-matched (word count within ±15%).”