Minimal But Conditional: Auditing Demographic Bias in Large Language Model Résumé Evaluation Across Commercial and Open-Weight Models

Large language models are increasingly used to read résumés and judge who advances in hiring, a task once reserved for people and now handed to systems whose reasoning is hard to inspect. Whether these models carry the demographic biases that have long shaped human hiring is therefore an urgent question, and the published evidence so far is mixed and difficult to interpret, partly because studies tend to test a single condition and rarely confirm that their measurement instrument can detect bias at all. This paper audits demographic bias in résumé evaluation across three current models, one of them open-weight, and treats robustness as a central concern rather than seeking a single verdict. The audit pairs a positive control that confirms the models read genuine differences in candidate quality with a deliberate attempt to provoke bias by weakening candidates, relaxing the prompt, and adding culture-fit language of the kind used in real hiring. Bias tied to race and gender is found to be very small and to stay small even under these adverse conditions, which is a more reassuring and more demanding result than a null measured once. The one systematic preference that emerges favours candidates who appear more experienced, and closer inspection shows that most of it is an artifact of how the résumés were built rather than a bias against age, leaving only a modest effect that surfaces when the prompt is casual. A separate and quieter pattern appears in the open-weight model, which reacts to a few explicit signals of minority status. The broader lesson is that fairness measured on a clean benchmark does not by itself guarantee fairness in deployment, because how a model is prompted can decide whether bias appears.