From Runtime Records to Legal Findings: An Evidentiary-Adequacy Criterion for Agentic AI Oversight
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Agentic AI systems generate runtime records, logs, traces, and audit artefacts, but the existence or integrity of such records does not by itself establish that legally operative oversight findings can be recovered from them. This technical report defines an evidentiary-adequacy criterion for a bounded class of determinations: binary findings of fact about specific events and their relations, such as whether protected data crossed a boundary, whether a human could intervene, whether an information barrier held, or whether delegated authority was valid at the moment of use. The criterion states that a runtime record can answer such a determination only if it carries both a typing that maps recorded events to the legally operative category and the relation, such as provenance, authority, derivation, or temporal validity, on which the determination's truth depends. The claim is one of necessity, not sufficiency. The report instantiates the criterion against selected EU AI Act oversight obligations and explains why tamper-proof logs, generic process frameworks, and provenance structures alone cannot establish the relevant findings. It further relates the argument to requisite variety, the Good Regulator Theorem, and the trace-versus-hyperproperty boundary of runtime verification. Companion materials and the experiment protocol are archived on Zenodo.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 4 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jul 2026.
Builds on
4 of 23 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2025MI9: An Integrated Runtime Governance Framework for Agentic AI5 Aug
- 2025AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents24 Mar
Other references · 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026An Evidence Model for Agentic Processes: Evidence Claims, Trust Assumptions, and Policy Assessment
- 2026When Agents Act Unwatched: The Reduced-Supervision Paradox in Agentic AI
- 2026Correct Is Not Governed: Provenance Integrity in Agentic Workflows
- 2026Partial Evidence Bench: Benchmarking Authorization-Limited Evidence in Agentic Systems
- 2026Decision Evidence Maturity Model for Agentic AI: A Property-Level Method Specification
- 2026CAVA: Canonical Action Verification and Attestation for Runtime Governance of Agentic AI Systems
- 2026Reasoning Provenance for Autonomous AI Agents: Structured Behavioral Analytics Beyond State Checkpoints and Execution Traces
- 2026Who Audits Whom, on What Substrate, with What Evidence? An Independence-Graded Audit Protocol for Agentic AI