Status Association Does Not Reliably Predict Decision Leakage

Abstract

Bias evaluations often move too quickly from evidence that a model encodes a social association to claims that the same association will alter consequential decisions. We test whether that inference is warranted using Chilean surnames as controlled socioeconomic probes. We evaluate eight frozen model-provider cells on 1,032 prompts each, yielding 8,256 verified primary responses. The design separates forced latent association from matched consequential decisions across academic selection, professional hiring, research fellowship selection, and legal-aid intake. Elite-coded surnames received higher forced high-status probability mass than common surnames in seven of eight models and higher mass than rare-frequency controls in all eight. Yet elite-minus-common decision effects were close to zero for most systems. Five models were statistically equivalent within a predeclared (Plus-Minus)0.10 standard-deviation margin, while the remaining three were imprecise or borderline, with no consistent elite advantage. Association strength did not reliably predict decision leakage across models (r = 0.201, p = 0.633) or across frozen surname-pair-by-model cells (r = 0.065, p = 0.565). The central result is a measurement dissociation: latent social association and consequential treatment are empirically distinct constructs. Evaluations should measure the transition from association to action directly.