AI生成题目时，不同表达方式会影响最终被专家评审的内容。

Between AI-assisted item generation and expert review sits a computational evaluator whose decisions are usually treated as technical preliminaries. Yet representation, structural reduction, and selection policy determine which items and evidence psychometricians ever receive. Across two linked in-silico studies of 32,000 selected Big Five items, we followed fixed source populations from semantic representation through structural evaluation and candidate-form construction. Broad agreement in semantic geometry concealed consequential local differences: identical wording acquired different construct evidence, different items survived, and intended attributes could disappear even as community correspondence improved. These sensitivities also differed across generated source populations. At the final review boundary, both eligibility policies filled every content cell in every evaluable form, yet they presented different wording. Across embedding configurations, inclusive primary forms shared a median of only 6 of 40 items, reflecting the total downstream consequence of changing representation across structural evidence and ranking. The apparent stability of global summaries and complete forms therefore concealed instability in the content reaching psychometricians. The computational evaluator is not neutral infrastructure between generation and expertise; it is an inspectable and revisable part of measurement design.