{ "schema_version": 1, "builder_plan": { "scenario": "An agent reads external documents or tool responses that may contain malicious instructions.", "change": "Replay attacks and legitimate lookalikes in an isolated copy of your agent workflow.", "baseline": "Your existing checks with the same tasks, permissions, and tool responses.", "steps": [ "Locate the paper's implementation and check its license, model support, data needs, and hardware requirements. Stop here if you cannot obtain the required artifacts.", "Save a small set of representative product tasks and expected outcomes. Keep evaluation tasks out of any training or tuning, and choose quality and cost limits before running.", "Run the baseline and the proposed change on identical inputs. Keep other settings fixed and repeat paired runs to expose variation.", "Save per-task outputs, failures, timings, and all usage costs. Review regressions before expanding the test." ], "measure": "Successful attacks missed, legitimate actions blocked, detection delay, and review cost.", "decision": "Keep the change only if it meets your preselected quality and latency limits and improves the metric you care about after setup and operating costs. Otherwise retain the baseline. This is an exploration plan, not a validated recommendation." }, "builder_review": null, "arxiv_id": "2609.18272", "title": "Who Audits Whom, on What Substrate, with What Evidence? An Independence-Graded Audit Protocol for Agentic AI", "summary": "It replaces the binary internal/external audit-independence check with a three-axis grading scheme (principal, substrate, evidence independence) aggregated by weakest link, plus a beta-factor common-cause failure model and a seven-step verifiable protocol. It costs analyst effort rather than GPU or API budget: applying the rubric, collecting attestable rather than self-reported evidence, and optionally engaging a substrate-independent auditor. It can fail if substrate independence cannot actually be procured (a small team may only afford auditors built on the same foundation model the rubric flags), if the beta-factor calibration is wrong for a given deployment, or if the graded score is treated as compliance proof rather than a diagnostic.", "rationale": "The protocol is infrastructure-free and directly relevant to teams shipping agents under EU AI Act or ISO/IEC 42006 obligations, but its fault-detection benefit is supported only by simulation and a single structural case study, so it warrants a pilot on one production agent before adoption as standard practice.", "technique": "Independence-graded audit protocol for agentic AI", "family": "seguranca_e_guardrails", "recommendation": "testar", "published": "2026-09-16", "as_of": "2026-10-18", "editorial_status": "indexed", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.18272", "independent_implementations": 0, "total_implementations": 0, "stars": 0, "citations": 0, "claims": [ { "claim_id": "claim-01", "statement": "It replaces the binary internal/external audit-independence check with a three-axis grading scheme (principal, substrate, evidence independence) aggregated by weakest link, plus a beta-factor common-cause failure model and a seven-step verifiable protocol. It costs analyst effort rather than GPU or API budget: applying the rubric, collecting attestable rather than self-reported evidence, and optionally engaging a substrate-independent auditor. It can fail if substrate independence cannot actually be procured (a small team may only afford auditors built on the same foundation model the rubric flags), if the beta-factor calibration is wrong for a given deployment, or if the graded score is treated as compliance proof rather than a diagnostic.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.18272", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "claim_id": "claim-02", "statement": "No improvement claim over a baseline method. The paper's quantitative finding is diagnostic: in a Monte Carlo study, a conventional internal audit surfaced 5.9% of detectable faults and none at all in half the fault classes.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.18272", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" } ], "exposure_map": [ { "dimension": "quality", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "compute", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "latency", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "operations", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "compatibility", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "security", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "data_and_training", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "reproducibility", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" } ], "risks": [], "minimum_test": [], "open_questions": [], "independent_tests": [], "lab_reproductions": [], "report_available": false, "validation_tier": "unknown", "evidence_tier": "unknown", "infrastructure_basis": "unknown", "equations": [], "equations_status": "not_fetched", "core_kind": "", "equations_fetched_at": "", "equations_source_url": "", "equations_source_sha256": "", "exposures_reviewed_at": "", "exposures_source_sha256": "" }