CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.HCcs.AIcs.CY2026-06-28

LLMography: Transforming Human-AI Conversations into Traceability, Oversight, and Auditability Indicators

Mohammed Bousmah

The growing use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in education, software engineering, academic writing, and technical documentation raises a key question: how can we evaluate not only AI-assisted outputs, but also the interaction process that produced them? Current debates often focus on detecting whether a final artifact was generated by AI, while overlooking the conversation history that reveals human direction, AI contribution, corrections, validation, and traceability. This paper introduces LLMography, a framework for transforming Human-AI conversations into measurable indicators of provenance, human contribution, AI dependency, reproducibility, and auditability. By analogy with bibliography and webography, LLMography documents the dynamic trajectory of interaction between a human and a Large Language Model as a structured trace of Human-AI co-production. We present a prototype that analyzes Human-AI conversation traces and generates KPI reports including Prompt Quality Score, Human Direction Score, AI Dependency Level, Auditability Score, Final Output Traceability, Privacy Risk Level, and a recommended LLMography label. A preliminary exploratory evaluation was conducted on 19 anonymized audit reports from engineering students. Most interactions were classified as Human-AI co-produced, with average scores of 86.8/100 for Human Direction, 81.9/100 for Prompt Quality, 72.8/100 for Auditability, and 77.1/100 for Final Output Traceability. The paper also applies LLMography to its own writing process, classified as human-originated, human-directed, AI-assisted co-production. The findings suggest that AI transparency should move beyond output detection toward documenting the history of interaction.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.MAcs.AIcs.CYcs.HC2026-07-17

When Not to Automate: A Formal Protocol for Human Preservation in AI-Optimized Organizations

Jose Manuel de la Chica Rodriguez, Jairo Rodriguez Arias, Spyridon Chouliaras

Standard automation ROI misses four categories of systemic risk -- tacit knowledge erosion, resilience reduction, regulatory exposure, and socio-institutional capital degradation -- that affect long-term organizational performance. PHP-AIO (Protocol for Human Preservation in AI-O…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.HCcs.AIcs.CYcs.ETeess.SY2026-07-01

AI, Trust, and Teaming: The Humans-as-Handlers Approach for Autonomous and Opaque AI Systems

Nathan G. Wood

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming ubiquitous, and across domains, increasingly autonomous systems are carrying out tasks which raise significant ethical and legal challenges which demonstrate a need for strong human-machine teams rooted in trust. In this article, I argue t…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.CYcs.HC2026-07-02

Copewell: A Multi-Agent Swarm Architecture for Equitable Mental Wellness Support

Seren Yenikent, Jack Vinijtrongjit, Katherine Ng

Mental health disorders affect nearly one billion people globally, yet 75% of individuals in low- and middle-income countries receive no treatment due to workforce shortages, cost barriers, and stigma. Current AI-powered wellness solutions predominantly rely on single-mode conver…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CYcs.AIcs.HC2026-07-21

The safety failures we are not instrumenting: a perspective on hidden safety-critical challenges in modern AI systems

Gjergji Kasneci, Enkelejda Kasneci

Current AI safety discourse still focuses disproportionately on visible failures, including obvious harms, dramatic misuse, and hypothetical catastrophic scenarios. That focus is incomplete. In deployed systems, many of the most consequential failures are quieter: plausible rathe…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CYcs.AIcs.HC2026-07-06

Beyond Accuracy: How Humans Evaluate Legally Correct but Socially Controversial Legal Advice from Machines

Benjamin Minhao Chen, Zhiyu Li

AI systems are increasingly used to provide legal advice, raising questions about whether laypeople accept guidance from algorithms--especially when that advice is legally correct but socially controversial. We report a preregistered survey experiment with 3,348 adults in mainlan…

View free PDFSource page