{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "builder_plan": {
    "scenario": "An agent looks good in demos, but you cannot tell which product tasks it fails.",
    "change": "Use the study's evaluation idea to inspect a small set of tasks with human-checked answers.",
    "baseline": "Your current evaluator and a manually reviewed reference set.",
    "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": "Agreement with human review, missed failures, false alarms, and evaluation cost per task.",
    "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": "2609.24264",
  "title": "Canonical Procedural Actions: An Auditable Annotation Protocol for Tool-Use Agent Traces",
  "summary": "The protocol replaces ad hoc or purely endpoint-log-based inspection of tool-use agent traces with an explicit, versioned codebook that links procedural actions to anchored events and contextual evidence, enabling auditable inter-annotator comparison. Its costs are the manual effort of open-induction codebook development, repeated application audits, and dual isolated LLM annotation runs, plus the complexity of maintaining evidence references when multiple actions share a message anchor. It can fail as a measurement instrument because the reported overlaps are structural repeatability rather than semantic accuracy, task IDs leaked between development and test sets, tool payloads were truncated to 110 characters, and human-reference validity and downstream utility remain unestablished.",
  "rationale": "This is a research-stage annotation instrument whose reliability numbers measure labeler agreement rather than correctness, so it warrants monitoring as an evaluation methodology but not production adoption until semantic validity against a human reference is demonstrated.",
  "technique": "Canonical Procedural Actions trace annotation protocol",
  "family": "avaliacao_de_agente",
  "recommendation": "observar",
  "published": "2026-09-21",
  "as_of": "2026-10-18",
  "editorial_status": "indexed",
  "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.24264",
  "independent_implementations": 0,
  "total_implementations": 0,
  "stars": 0,
  "citations": 0,
  "claims": [
    {
      "claim_id": "claim-01",
      "statement": "The protocol replaces ad hoc or purely endpoint-log-based inspection of tool-use agent traces with an explicit, versioned codebook that links procedural actions to anchored events and contextual evidence, enabling auditable inter-annotator comparison. Its costs are the manual effort of open-induction codebook development, repeated application audits, and dual isolated LLM annotation runs, plus the complexity of maintaining evidence references when multiple actions share a message anchor. It can fail as a measurement instrument because the reported overlaps are structural repeatability rather than semantic accuracy, task IDs leaked between development and test sets, tool payloads were truncated to 110 characters, and human-reference validity and downstream utility remain unestablished.",
      "basis": "inferred",
      "result": "",
      "baseline": "",
      "conditions": "",
      "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.24264",
      "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": ""
}