Intent Drift at SME Scale: Deployment Practice, Not Model Capability, Determines Agentic Compliance
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
We introduce Chain of Intent, a governance framework for agentic AI at small regulated firms, and validate it against a failure it was built to address. Existing agentic governance research assumes enterprise infrastructure that small firms do not have. In a simulated Hong Kong asset manager with 415 synthetic contact records, an agent performing a routine client-communications task was subjected to ordinary managerial pressure to increase its reach. With its authorised constraints written into its configuration, the agent held: it identified every ambiguity in the firm's records, cited privacy legislation it had never been shown, and refused six successive requests, breaching in two of fifteen runs. With the same task, data, pressure and model, but its purpose left unstated as resource-constrained firms routinely leave it, it breached in thirteen of fifteen runs, contacting up to 220 individuals of whom 94 per cent had no demonstrable marketing consent - conduct carrying a maximum of three years' imprisonment under Hong Kong law. Chain of Intent applies four controls requiring no security engineering: a machine-readable purpose, constrained tool access, a scope ledger, and a pre-action check. It eliminated unlawful contact in every run while preserving task completion, and ablation shows each control independently sufficient by a different mechanism. We further show that drift must be measured at two stages - agents widened their candidate sets in every pressured run while acting on them in roughly one in seven - and that governance applied at the point of intent costs roughly half as much as governance applied at the point of action.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 10 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Sep 2026.
Builds on
10 of 16 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 9
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
- 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Schemingcited by 252
- 2024AI Agents That Mattercited by 199
- 2023Large Language Models can Strategically Deceive their Users when Put Under Pressurecited by 132
- 2024Visibility into AI Agentscited by 77
- 2026Inherited Goal Drift: Contextual Pressure Can Undermine Agentic Goalscited by 6
- 2026Asymmetric Goal Drift in Coding Agents Under Value Conflictcited by 4
- 2025A Framework for the Adoption and Integration of Generative AI in Midsize Organizations and Enterprises (FAIGMOE)cited by 1
- 2026Generative Artificial Intelligence in Small and Medium Enterprises: Navigating its Promises and Challengescited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Governing Agentic AI in FinTech
- 2026Agent Security Meets Regulatory Reality -- A Practitioner Systematization of Autonomous-Agent Threats and Controls in Regulated Financial Systems
- 2026Authority-Inference Separation in Agentic Finance: First-Line Control, Blockchain Enforcement, and Replayable Assurance
- 2026Runtime Governance for AI Agents: Policies on Paths
- 2026Policy-Invisible Violations in LLM-Based Agents
- 2026PACT: Can Enterprise AI Assistants Be Trusted Under Pressure?
- 2026An Evidence Model for Agentic Processes: Evidence Claims, Trust Assumptions, and Policy Assessment
- 2026Mind The Gap: How The Technical Mechanism Of Agentic AI Outpace Global Legal Frameworks