# From Agent Failure Paths to Quantified Residual Risk: A Compositional Framework for Resilient Agentic AI

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.18243 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.18243/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 10 of its 24 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.00352/) (2023)
- [DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03714/) (2023)
- [Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13657/) (2025)
- [Defeating Prompt Injections by Design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18813/) (2025)
- [AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18666/) (2025)
- [On the Resilience of LLM-Based Multi-Agent Collaboration with Faulty Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.00989/) (2024)
- [SoK: The Attack Surface of Agentic AI - Tools and Autonomy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.22928/) (2026)
- [Assurance of AI Systems From a Dependability Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.13948/) (2024)
- [An Adversarial Risk Analysis Framework for Cybersecurity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.07727/) (2019)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic AI is crossing trust boundaries faster than current risk models can represent. Existing approaches provide one of two partial views. They either describe failure mechanisms without producing a transferable residual-risk estimate, or they produce a risk estimate while treating the internal failure path as a black box. We couple those two views by proposing CPSAINT, a seven-layer integrity decomposition over Physical state, Sensors, Data, Compute, Actuators, Environment, and Time, paired with FRIESA-K, a residual-risk functional that maps each failure path to a quantified risk instance. FRIESA-K grounds the resistance term K in a controlled absorbing Markov model so that control effectiveness is derived from state dynamics rather than assigned as an informal score. The result is a concise mechanism-to magnitude pipeline for resilient agentic and embodied AI. We report governance observability through a separate additive penalty instead of inserting governance as a new variable in the resistance functional. We formalize structural composability linking valid failure paths to well-defined risk instances and show the framework on two contrasting scenarios a hard real-time warehouse robot and a governance-instrumented financial-services agent. Across both cases, the same layer grammar, variable semantics, and dynamic-resistance construction remain intact. Thus, we obtain a compact kernel that supports cross-domain reasoning, explicit assumptions, and quantitatively grounded formalism of composable trust.