# Organising Trajectory Evidence for Language-Model Agent Assurance: Fragments, Methods, and the Residual

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04710 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.04710/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 13 of its 29 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07982/) (2025)
- [Distribution-Free, Risk-Controlling Prediction Sets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.02703/) (2021)
- [AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18666/) (2025)
- [Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding under Partial Observability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.00755/) (2022)
- [AgentArmor: Enforcing Program Analysis on Agent Runtime Trace to Defend Against Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.01249/) (2025)
- [Process Mining for Python (PM4Py): Bridging the Gap Between Process- and Data Science](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.06169/) (2019)
- [Lying with Truths: Open-Channel Multi-Agent Collusion for Belief Manipulation via Generative Montage](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.01685/) (2026)
- [Skill Coverage: A Test Adequacy Metric for Agent Skills](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.20659/) (2026)
- [ToolPrivacyBench: Benchmarking Purpose-Bound Privacy in Tool-Using LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.28061/) (2026)
- [Grounded Continuation: A Linear-Time Runtime Verifier for LLM Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.14175/) (2026)
- [SCARCE: Scalable Cascade Analysis for Rare-event Characterisation via Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.29623/) (2026)
- [SkillFuzz: Fuzzing Skill Composition for Implicit Intents Discovery in Open Skill Marketplaces](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.02345/) (2026)
- [Runtime Compliance Verification for AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.19242/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Methods for assessing language-model agents include rule checkers over logs, analyses of skill coverage and composition, support checkers, prefix monitors, execution gates, and rare-event estimators. Each observes a different part of a run and makes a claim of a different strength, and no common account says how these claims combine or what they leave unchecked. We give one, built from a logic, information fragments, and an assurance ledger. Requirements are formulas of a two-tier logic: an outer finite-trace temporal logic over recorded events, and an inner logic of standing over the argument structure that the agent's recorded context supports at a decision. A rule violation and an action taken on withdrawn support are thus formulas of one language. The information available to an assessor, to the agent, and to an execution gate defines fragments of that language; each checking method decides one fragment and returns a typed claim: exact, on a named test suite, a risk bound, or descriptive. The ledger merges the evidence and classifies every obligation as established, addressed but not established, or unaddressed. On 456 released τ2-bench telecom trajectories, the benchmark oracle flags 231 runs; adding a rule checker, a support stand-in, and a prefix-monitor baseline raises the union to 391, 401, and 407, each contributing flags the others miss, and a gate makes one prohibition exact on a gated deployment. The 49 unflagged runs and the unmet or unaddressed obligations form the residual. Discovery makes unknown requirements explicit, and new or stronger checkers then reduce it.