The LLM Proposes, the Executive Disposes: A Self-Verifying Agent Instrument that Dissociates Commitment Drift from Binding Drift in Long-Horizon Agents
Mohsen Arjmandi
Abstract
How do you verify a long-horizon agent when its own state and self-reports are exactly what you cannot trust? We present an agent instrument built so that verification is structural rather than post-hoc. A deterministic Executive owns all belief; a language model may only file typed proposals, and a claim is admitted only when a prediction pre-registered before acting is matched against observation by code. Two properties make the instrument a verifier of its own science, not just of the agent: every run invalidates itself when per-organ write-error, render-size, or salted-canary-echo floors are breached (four of the first eight architecture runs were invalidated, each localizing a real defect); and a render-invisible shadow reference compiles the plan the full system would have committed in every ablation cell, so drift metrics are defined even where the mechanism under test has been removed. Using this instrument we report a clean, single-variable result on a failure every long-horizon agent suffers: ablating the commitment mechanism flips goal-abandonment from 0.00 to 1.00 while binding error stays flat at 0.00 (three seeds per cell, up to 394 reference beats per run, every run gated valid). The binding channel, by contrast, does not reappear as per-beat drift when its repair is ablated -- because binding is code-owned, the failure class is structurally absorbed, its only residue appearing one layer upstream as a collapse in hypothesis formation. We report these under full disclosure that task efficacy is null (zero level completions across 52 gated runs on ARC-AGI-3), pre-registered as a structural defeater. The contribution is a verification methodology for agent development and the drift decomposition it makes measurable.
Create a lesson
Related papers
MUSE: Benchmarking Large Vision-Language Models on Multi-Modal Understanding in Situated Education
Luyao Zhu, Xun Wei Yee, Wei Li et al.
Infinite-Parameter LLMs: Generating and Adapting Weights from Live Data
Jinli Hu, Ross M. Clarke, Yichuan Zhang et al.
Compositional Policy Violations: When Step-Level Compliance Fails In Agentic AI Workflows
Ashwini Kurady, Sri Sai Charith Grandhi, Rajesh Gupta et al.
CERA-MoA: Co-Evolving Routing Mechanisms with Continually Learning LLM Agents
Jiaxuan Jiang, Liyuan He, Zhixuan Fang
Version- and Scope-Aware Question Answering over Normative Documents: A Deployed System and an End-to-End Evaluation at Production Scale
Liuyin Wang, Shuaipeng Jin, Jiwei Shi et al.
Clueing up LLMs with Tool-Augmented Deductive Reasoning
Rebecca Ansell, Autumn Toney-Wails