mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Janus: Evidence-Before-Effect Sagas and Offline-Verifiable Provenance for Agentic LLMs

arXiv 2609.38266 ↗First posted 29 Sep 2026cs.CR cs.AI cs.DCcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Financial trading and forecasting agents also fits: Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic large language models (LLMs) now move money through tools, yet the record of what they did is usually a trace their own process emits beside the effect. Janus puts the record on the effect path. A step's proposal, the verdict on it and any answer from a validator or a person are durable in a signed, hash-chained log before the step may run or its effect be released; with keys declared, each answer is signed by whoever gave or relayed it. Gates are pure functions of that log, and an auditor re-derives every verdict offline from the log and one public key. At the MCP edge the effect is held until then; through the SDK, which our model experiment uses, a cooperating client runs it only afterwards. We evaluate Janus under crash injection (144 kills in-process, 81 through the daemon), by verifying a 100-million-event log offline (254.5 s), and with a real model behind a lending workflow, run governed and plain on the same recorded model outputs. With the lending mandate in the model's prompt, the comparison was 0 against 0. With it only in the policy and the amount's unit stated, the model approved six loans declared over the mandate, three with no injection (a run that also dropped the unit approved three); the plain agent paid all six and Janus none, each refused by a deterministic validator and re-derivable offline. An always-approve oracle over the recorded intakes gave 20 and 21 declared over the mandate against 0, though Janus paid four and three whose declared amount understated the request. Designing the experiment exposed, in a system that passed its own audit, an instance of post-approval substitution: an approval keyed to an attempt was counted for a different proposal, moving a person's approval from 100 to 1,000,000. We report it, a first fix and the five routes around it, and what Janus does not guarantee.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Financial trading and forecasting agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 24 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.

Builds on

24 of 43 references.

References · 24

  1. 2025SagaLLM: Context Management, Validation, and Transaction Guarantees for Multi-Agent LLM Planningcited by 60
  2. 2026From Agent Traces to Trust: A Survey of Evidence Tracing and Execution Provenance in LLM Agentscited by 37
  3. 2026Atomix: Timely, Transactional Tool Use for Reliable Agentic Workflowscited by 30
  4. 2026Cordon: Semantic Transactions for Tool-Using LLM Agentscited by 22
  5. 2026Auditable Agentscited by 15
  6. 2026What You Approve Is What Executes: Consent Integrity for Black-Box LLM Agentscited by 9
  7. 2026AEGIS: No Tool Call Left Unchecked -- A Pre-Execution Firewall and Audit Layer for AI Agentscited by 8
  8. 2026Mnemosyne: Agentic Transaction Processing for Validating and Repairing AI-generated Workflowscited by 8
  9. 2026Right to History: A Sovereignty Kernel for Verifiable AI Agent Executioncited by 7
  10. 2026AgentRewind: Recoverable Execution for Long-Horizon LLM Agentscited by 7
  11. 2026Atomicity for Agents: Exposing, Exploiting, and Mitigating TOCTOU Vulnerabilities in Browser-Use Agentscited by 6
  12. 2026Autonomous Action Runtime Management(AARM):A System Specification for Securing AI-Driven Actions at Runtimecited by 5
12 more
  1. 2026Sovereign Agentic Loops: Decoupling AI Reasoning from Execution in Real-World Systemscited by 5
  2. 2026LEDGER: Claim-to-Evidence Trace Graphs for Auditing LLM Agentscited by 5
  3. 2026Faramesh: A Protocol-Agnostic Execution Control Plane for Autonomous Agent Systemscited by 4
  4. 2015Keeping Authorities "Honest or Bust" with Decentralized Witness Cosigningcited by 3
  5. 2026Robust Agent Compensation (RAC): Teaching AI Agents to Compensatecited by 3
  6. 2026Proof of Execution: Runtime Verification for Governed AI Agent Actionscited by 3
  7. 2026Resume Means Resume: A Machine-Checked Conformance Contract for Checkpoint, Interrupt, and Resume Semantics in Workflow Persistence Layerscited by 3
  8. 2026Loopjacking: Hijacking Human-in-the-Loop Approvalcited by 3
  9. 2026Safe to Resume? Breaking Execution Continuity of Agent Execution via Rollbackcited by 2
  10. 2026Agent Flight Recorder: Tamper-Evident Audit Trails with On-Chain Anchoring for Long-Horizon Tool-Using Agentscited by 2
  11. 2026The Verifiable Action Card: Trustworthy Human-in-the-Loop Control for Secure Autonomous Agentscited by 2
  12. 2026NovaFabric: Tamper-Evident, Replayable Evidence for Autonomous AI Agent Runscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Beyond Agent Architecture: Execution Assumptions and Reproducibility in LLM-Based Trading Systems
  2. 2026Silence Is Endorsement: Verification-Status Laundering in LLM Agent Pipelines
  3. 2026The Harness as the Only Mutable Surface: Compliance-Bounded Self-Evolution of LLM Agents in Credit Pipelines, with a Measured Admission Gate
  4. 2026READER: Dynamic LLM Provenance from Query-Varying Interactions
  5. 2025Standard Benchmarks Fail -- Auditing LLM Agents in Finance Must Prioritize Risk
  6. 2026Replayable Financial Agents: A Determinism-Faithfulness Assurance Harness for Tool-Using LLM Agents
  7. 2026Look Before You Leap: Pre-Action Verification for LLM Agents
  8. 2026The Price of Agreement: Measuring LLM Sycophancy in Agentic Financial Applications