What a One-Hour Interview Does Not Tell an LLM About You: Interviews Elicit Traits, Not Decision Policies

Abstract

Large language models are increasingly asked to stand in for particular people, and interviewing the person is the natural way to tell a model who they are. We test what a one-hour LLM-led adaptive interview tells a model about an individual's value-laden decisions. 46 adults completed such an interview and then answered 25 dilemma questions, which are the ground truth. We predict their answers from different parts of the transcript, compare adaptive follow-up questions with fixed ones on the same participants, and benchmark every variant against a model given no information about the person and against the majority answer. No part of the interview is reliably better than either baseline, and adaptive follow-ups are no better than fixed ones. Two audits of the transcripts show why. For 85% of the errors an auditor finds no evidence that distinguishes the person's choice from the alternatives, and where a transcript does contain related evidence, the option it favours matches the person's own answer less often than the majority answer does. The same transcripts do improve recovery of the person's MBTI type. Interviews of this kind elicit traits, not decision policies. We discuss what decision-aware elicitation would require and why persona agents should not be delegated value-laden decisions, and we release the consenting participants' transcripts with all predictions.