SARC-DQ: Runtime Data-Quality Gating for Agentic AI: Silent Evidence Defects, the Incompetence Shield, and Downstream-Only Remediation
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Agentic systems act, so a defect in the evidence they retrieve becomes a wrong action with a currency cost. The most dangerous enterprise defects are metadata-borne: a stale price or a superseded record, perfectly well-formed in the payload and betrayed only by freshness, lineage, or provenance. Such a defect never enters the agent's context, and an agent cannot doubt data it cannot see. On a priced replenishment benchmark, a competent agent silently converts an injected metadata-borne defect into a costly action about 60% of the time, with zero data-quality flags and behavioral doubt markers at chance (AUC <= 0.50). Across four model tiers spanning roughly 15x in inference price, the rate stays flat: capability does not buy skepticism. A metadata-aware pre-action gate with downstream-only remediation recovers the loss fully on the signals its predicates cover and not at all on those they miss. A model-free oracle derived from the task's decision geometry tracks the measured rates with MAE 0.015 (Pearson r = 0.876, interval coverage 15/16 cells), giving the flat ladder an analytical form. Evidence integrity is a systems axis distinct from model capability; mitigation depends on enforcement placement and predicate coverage. Code, frozen results, and a deterministic analysis pipeline: https://github.com/besanson/dqSarc
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers 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 8 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jul 2026.
Builds on
8 of 17 references.
Closest ancestors · 3
Same direction, newest first
- 2026SARC: A Governance-by-Architecture Framework for Agentic AI Systems8 May
- 2025AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents24 Mar
- 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep
Other references · 5
- 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,280
- 2024Learning to Ask: When LLM Agents Meet Unclear Instructioncited by 38
- 2024Tools Fail: Detecting Silent Errors in Faulty Toolscited by 23
- 2015Truth Finding on the Deep Web: Is the Problem Solved?cited by 10
- 2026Green SARC: Predictive Cost and Carbon Governance for Agentic AI Systemscited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026One Gate Is Not Enough: Composing Stateful Pre-Action Controls for Agentic AIcited by 2
- 2026Quipu: A Governed Bitemporal Knowledge Graph Storecited by 0
- 2026Probabilistic Sensing, Deterministic Authority: Admitting Model-Produced Observations into Sufficiency-Checked Governance Contractscited by 0
- 2026Probabilistic Sensing, Deterministic Authority: Admitting Model-Produced Observations into Sufficiency-Checked Governance Contracts7 Oct 2026
- 2026One Gate Is Not Enough: Composing Stateful Pre-Action Controls for Agentic AI18 Aug 2026
- 2026Quipu: A Governed Bitemporal Knowledge Graph Store17 Aug 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Sanity Checks for Agentic Data Science
- 2026When Agents Overtrust Environmental Evidence: An Extensible Agentic Framework for Benchmarking Evidence-Grounding Defects in LLM Agents
- 2026Engineering Reliable Commit Gates for Agentic AI: Cost-Aware Verification Portfolios under Common-Mode Data Failures
- 2026Trust Is Not a Score: Runtime Assurance Contracts for High-Risk AI Agents
- 2026Causality Laundering: Denial-Feedback Leakage in Tool-Calling LLM Agents
- 2026Agentic Commerce Bench: Measuring Fraud Detection for Agents That Spend Money
- 2026Measurement Without Validity: The Compounding Reliability Problem in Agentic AI Evaluation
- 2026Teach it to stop, not just to click