# ClaimReceipt: Verifying Evidence Sufficiency and Coverage in Agent Evaluations

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.01992 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.01992/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Sep 2026.

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

- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Datasheets for Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.09010/) (2018)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [Model Cards for Model Reporting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03993/) (2018)
- [Measurement and Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.05511/) (2019)
- [AI Agents That Matter](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01502/) (2024)
- [An introduction to Docker for reproducible research, with examples from the R environment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1410.0846/) (2014)
- [When Outcome Looks Right But Discipline Fails: Trace-Based Evaluation Under Hidden Competitor State](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.18580/) (2026)
- [When Aggregate Alignment Misleads: Auditing Policy Repair Without Per-State Expert Actions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.03386/) (2026)
- [When Guardrails Look Effective: Construct Validity Failures in LLM Agent Commerce Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.01519/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [What Output-Only Review Cannot Verify: Study Contracts for Research Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.11754/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Agent evaluations face two distinct evidentiary questions: whether a reported claim is recomputable from retained evidence (sufficiency), and whether the retained records cover the committed experiment set (coverage). Generic logs and hash-linked transcripts answer neither reliably. We introduce ClaimReceipt, a claim-relative receipt specification and selective verifier that binds typed transaction evidence to a signed experiment manifest and returns PASS, INVALID, or INCONCLUSIVE per claim. We freeze the specification before implementation (SHA-256 18d109...b81). On 1,392 historical buyer--seller records, a CR-2 verifier reproduces all five manually labeled audit verdicts, exactly replays 600 deterministic and 792 post-generation records, makes every one of 13 declared field groups non-redundant under tested ablations, and returns the expected result on 11/11 semantic faults with 0/8 false positives. We then run a separate prospective CR-3 epoch: 30 assignments are committed before inference, terminal receipts are signed and chained, and private evidence is encrypted for an auditor. Complete evidence yields coverage and accounting PASS; withholding one terminal receipt returns INCONCLUSIVE_COVERAGE, while withholding all private openings preserves coverage and protocol verification but makes economic claims inconclusive, exactly matching a preregistered prediction. Receipt instrumentation adds 0.021% of model-inference time and 9.9 KB per transaction. A specification-legibility probe indicates that our own frozen specification is not yet unambiguous to an independent reader. Claim verification therefore requires both claim-sufficient evidence and a committed universe against which omissions become visible.