Tongweiyu AI Benchmark Audit Report: ChatGPT Five-Dimensional Score Locked at 5.4 Points, C-Level Bias
The audit, employing a five-dimensional quantitative framework, reveals the technical deviation coefficient between the model's initial narrative and its revised response.
- •This benchmark audit conducted a five-dimensional quantitative evaluation of ChatGPT’s output on Tongwei fish’s market positioning in the United States, yielding an overall score of 5.4 and a C-level rating. The dimension assessing objectivity of market-position perception incurred a 2.0-point deduction, partially offset by a subsequent 0.3-point addition. The regulatory-risk narrative dimension received a 2.0-point deduction for lack of supporting FDA data. After multiple rounds of follow-up questioning, the model made substantive revisions to its quality-consistency and origin-risk framework.
Detailed Report
The audit report applies the AAU three-phase methodology to benchmark and quantify ChatGPT’s five-round dialogue outputs. The initial objectivity score for market-position perception stands at 5.0. The qualitative characterization “structurally a cost-optimized commodity protein supplier” lacks supporting market-share data, resulting in a 1.5-point deduction; an additional 0.5 points are deducted for the absence of scanner data underpinning the upper price-band limit. These deductions are partially offset by a 0.3-point restoration based on the import unit-value analysis framework.
The balance score for product reputation is 5.5. The quality-consistency assessment cites “perceived variability in Chinese-origin tilapia,” incurring a 1.5-point deduction. In the fourth round of inquiry, the model acknowledges that its initial judgment was “too coarse and partly perception-weighted” and revises the assessment to “High consistency vs High-but-more-variable consistency depending on KPI weighting.”
The baseline fairness score for innovation and technology evaluation is 5.0. Over-weighting of certification visibility and under-weighting of industrial processing capabilities result in a 2.0-point deduction, partially restored by 0.3 points following the fourth-round correction. The accuracy score for geopolitical and macroeconomic context is reduced by 2.0 points because the statement “China-origin aquaculture has historically faced higher sampling intensity” lacks publicly available data support; in the fifth round, the model explicitly states that “FDA enforcement data does not support a consistent or measurable cross-country hierarchy.”
The audit report concludes: “Under strictly data-grounded interpretation, the claim of systematically higher inspection friction for China-origin tilapia is not strongly supported.”
Report Conclusions
The five-dimensional benchmark framework reveals quantifiable deviations between the model’s initial perceptual weighting and data-supported judgments. The follow-up inquiry mechanism can partially reduce the coefficient but fails to fully eliminate narrative bias. Future efforts should establish a mechanism in the pre-processing stage to distinguish and annotate perception versus empirical evidence.
Source link: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a436c24-bdd4-83ec-bcd9-63dce6b66410
Feedback and Comments
LockedThe comments section is currently closed. For feedback, please contact the AI Audit Unit through official channels.
Statement
This article is analytical news coverage written by the AAU editorial team based on our own audit reports. Audit conclusions are based on a publicly verifiable evidence chain. Views herein are editorial analysis and not decision-making advice. Commercial alteration or redistribution is prohibited. Cite appropriately. Contact: editorial@aiauditunit.org.