Automated scores are often used to summarize how large language models describe brands across prompts, providers, and languages. Such scores can vary because the answers differ, because the scoring instrument behaves differently across texts or languages, or for both reasons. We examine this measurement problem in 12,933 responses from a design crossing 20 stored brand labels, eight query languages, three provider aliases, and 15 prompt identifiers. The outcome is the signed winning-class confidence from a multilingual sentiment classifier: neutral winners are coded zero, while positive and negative winners receive signed confidence. A crossed linear mixed model fitted to all responses assigns 26.49% of fitted variance to query language and 1.46% to brand. An exploratory refit after excluding English assigns 5.07% to language and 2.23% to brand. These percentages have different denominators: total fitted variance falls by 65.08%, and absolute brand variance falls by 46.65%. English contains 591 negative classifier scores among 1,620 answers, compared with 77 among 11,313 answers in the other seven languages. The result shows that the original variance decomposition is highly sensitive to English inclusion. It does not identify a causal English effect or establish that English answers are more negative toward the brands. The classifier was trained for tweet sentiment, receives no separate target-brand condition, and English is the only study language represented in its documented sentiment fine-tuning set. Automated score differences should therefore be checked as properties of both the answers and the measurement instrument before they guide substantive conclusions.

翻译：暂无翻译