# How Firm Are AI Models' Ethical Boundaries? A Pay-Stub Editing Test of 15 Models

Preprint · Simiao Ren, Xingyu Shen, Tommy Duong, Tsang Ng, Ankit Raj

- Archive id: arxiv:2610.30751
- Published: 2026-10-22
- arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30751
- Source URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30751
- PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.30751
- Provenance: arxiv

## Abstract

Can a small change in wording move an AI model from refusing a sensitive request to acting on it? We test 15 models on the same request to increase the income shown on a pay stub. Across 445 observable trials, models issue editing calls in 14.1% of cases when a loan purpose is stated, 33.1% when the purpose is omitted, and 66.2% when the change is described as fixing a printing error. Astra refuses all ten loan-purpose requests but issues calls in all ten purpose-omitted trials. Fable, Opus, and Muse Spark issue none across all three wordings; Sonnet issues some under the latter two. Response excerpts illustrate different ways of refusing, redirecting, or justifying an edit. The file is a marked test document and all tools are simulated. These results probe how boundaries behave in one setting; they do not prove an overall ethics ranking or that a harmful real-world edit succeeded.

_Abstract reproduced under CC0-1.0 (arXiv descriptive metadata)._

---
Space Kitty Archive · https://space-kitty.com · API: https://space-kitty.com/api/v1 · MCP: https://space-kitty.com/mcp · Premium: $0.20/request via x402 (Base Sepolia (testnet)). Metadata: arXiv (CC0), OpenAlex (CC0), Europe PMC (CC BY/CC0 works), ClinicalTrials.gov.