Perspective API closes at the end of 2026, removing the de facto standard for toxicity measurement and exposing researchers’ dependence on a tool they did not control. Drawing on this case, we argue that a research field must build and govern its own measurement infrastructure rather than borrow it. Surveying 241 papers that use or study Perspective, we show what depending on it cost the research community: claims reaching past what the tool could support, results that shifted when its model was silently retrained, and disparities researchers could measure but not explain. These failures were amplified throughout the LLM lifecycle, where Perspective supplied the labels, filtered the corpora, and graded the systems trained on each, rewarding errors rather than catching them. To keep the instrument open to study after shutdown, we release Perspective scores for 5.9 million text snippets from 77 datasets. We further specify ten requirements for measurement infrastructure a field owns, and argue that what blocks such infrastructure is not technical capability but the value the field places on infrastructure work.

Personalization of LLMs by sociodemographic subgroup often improves user experience, but can also introduce or amplify biases and unfair outcomes across groups. Prior work has employed so-called personas, sociodemographic user attributes conveyed to a model, to study bias in LLMs by relying on a single cue to prompt a persona, such as user names or explicit attribute mentions. This disregards LLM sensitivity to prompt variation and the rarity of some cues in real interactions (external validity). We compare six commonly used persona cues across seven open and proprietary LLMs on four writing and advice tasks. While cues are overall highly correlated, they produce substantial variance in responses across personas that can change findings on persona-induced differences and bias. We therefore caution against claims based on single persona cues, especially when they are overly explicit and have low external validity.

This paper finds that agentic AI systems intensify existing challenges to traditional public sector oversight mechanisms — which rely on siloed compliance units and episodic approvals rather than continuous, integrated supervision. We identify five governance dimensions essential for responsible agent deployment: cross-departmental implementation, comprehensive evaluation, enhanced security protocols, operational visibility, and systematic auditing. We evaluate the capacity of existing oversight structures to meet these challenges, via a mixed-methods approach consisting of a literature review and interviews with civil servants in AI-related roles. We find that agent oversight poses intensified versions of three existing governance challenges: continuous oversight, deeper integration of governance and operational capabilities, and interdepartmental coordination. We propose approaches that both adapt institutional mechanisms and design agent architectures compatible with public sector constraints.