Current safety evaluations of large language models rely on single-shot testing, implicitly assuming that model responses are deterministic and representative of the model's safety alignment. We challenge this assumption by investigating the stability of safety refusal decisions across random seeds and temperature settings. Testing four instruction-tuned models from three families (Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B, Qwen 3 8B, Gemma 3 12B) on 876 harmful prompts across 20 different sampling configurations (4 temperatures x 5 random seeds), we find that 18-28% of prompts exhibit decision flips--the model refuses in some configurations but complies in others--depending on the model. Our Safety Stability Index (SSI) reveals that higher temperatures significantly reduce decision stability (Friedman chi-squared = 396.81, p < 0.001), with mean within-temperature SSI dropping from 0.977 at temperature 0.0 to 0.942 at temperature 1.0. We validate our findings across all model families using Claude 3.5 Haiku as a unified external judge, achieving 89.0% inter-judge agreement with our primary Llama 70B judge (Cohen's kappa = 0.62). Within each model, prompts with higher compliance rates exhibit lower stability (Spearman rho = -0.47 to -0.70, all p < 0.001), indicating that models "waver" more on borderline requests. These findings demonstrate that single-shot safety evaluations are insufficient for reliable safety assessment and that evaluation protocols must account for stochastic variation in model behavior. We show that single-shot evaluation agrees with multi-sample ground truth only 92.4% of the time when pooling across temperatures (94.2-97.7% at fixed temperature depending on setting), and recommend using at least 3 samples per prompt for reliable safety assessment.