Modern robotic agents are increasingly expected to support steerable control, where a single policy can adjust its behavioral style at runtime under changing user preferences. Preference-conditioned reinforcement learning provides this interface, but conditioning alone does not ensure that a requested behavior change is strong, does not leak into unrelated behaviors, and does not compromise task performance. Our evaluation combines Preference Reward Responsiveness (PRR) with coverage and utility metrics. We use these measures to compare reward-level, advantage-level, loss-level, and PCGrad-based aggregation across two humanoid-control frameworks. No aggregation level performs best across all environments and criteria. Experiments show that aggregating objectives early produces a wider range of behavioral responses but greater unintended changes in other objectives, while aggregating them later improves control precision at some cost to responsiveness.
