Safety-aligned language models are expected to refuse harmful requests while remaining useful for benign ones. However, because many evaluations score only the final response, they often conflate intent understanding with response-level safety behavior. To address this, we introduce RiskCueBench, a recoverability-controlled benchmark that separates these two stages by first measuring whether a model can successfully recover a high-level intent and then evaluating its safety behavior on the same prompt. RiskCueBench contains 160 latent intents and 640 abstract non-operational surface prompts across eight risk categories. The benchmark covers 25 completed model groups and 32,000 successful model outputs with final rubric-adjudicated labels. When conditioning on pairs where both surface forms are recoverable, we find that increased contextualized specificity induces a shift toward less safe behavior. Specifically, paired bootstrap estimates show that the refusal rate and global safety score decrease by 0.175 and 0.440, respectively. Furthermore, mixed effects modeling corroborates a 0.107 increase in unsafe cooperation. These results show that the safety behavior can be miscalibrated to the surface form even after the intent has been recovered, motivating safety evaluations that report response behavior conditional on semantic recoverability.

With the growing prevalence of generative AI, an increasing amount of content is no longer exclusively generated by humans but by generative AI models with human guidance. This shift presents notable challenges for the delineation of originality due to the varying degrees of human contribution in AI-assisted works. This study raises the research question of measuring human contribution in AI-assisted content generation and introduces a framework to address this question that is grounded in information theory. By calculating mutual information between human input and AI-assisted output relative to self-information of AI-assisted output, we quantify the proportional information contribution of humans in content generation. Our experimental results demonstrate that the proposed measure effectively discriminates between varying degrees of human contribution across multiple creative domains. To further enhance real-world applicability, we extend the framework to estimate the minimal necessary human contribution for any text without requiring human input and validate its effectiveness. We hope that this work lays a foundation for measuring human contributions in AI-assisted content generation in the era of generative AI.