Research has documented LLMs’ name-based bias in hiring and salary recommendations. In this paper, we instead consider a setting where LLMs generate candidate summaries for downstream assessment. In a large-scale controlled study, we analyze nearly one million resume summaries produced by 4 models under systematic race–gender name perturbations, using synthetic O*NET-grounded resumes and real-world job postings. By decomposing each summary into resume-grounded factual content and evaluative framing, we find that factual content remains largely stable, while evaluative language exhibits subtle name-conditioned variation concentrated in the extremes of the distribution, especially in open-source models. Our LLM-judged hiring simulation demonstrates how evaluative summary transforms directional harm into symmetric instability that might evade conventional fairness audits in LLM-mediated pipelines, highlighting a potential pathway for LLM-to-LLM automation bias.