mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

One Step at a Time: Trading LLM Autonomy for Process Predictability

arXiv 2610.07817 ↗First posted 6 Oct 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Organizations automating operational processes need more than a correct outcome: they need to predict how a process will run, know which one actually ran, and inspect it step by step. When an agent is the executor that predictability is normally lost: the prescribed procedure goes into the system prompt, and only a final answer comes back. We deliver the procedure step by step over the Model Context Protocol (MCP) instead: a server releases one step at a time, the agent executes it, and each step returns a structured step_output. This trades autonomy for predictability, and two properties then follow by construction, independent of the executor. The execution path is prescribed before the run, so the process is predictable in advance rather than reconstructed afterwards; and the completed step records form a machine-readable execution log that downstream tooling can audit and optimize step by step. Evaluating 15,475 trials across 13 SOP-Bench domains and four open-weight executors from frontier (Kimi K2.5) to lightweight (Ministral 3 8B), we find step-level delivery makes the executed process predictable and inspectable for every executor, and additionally raises accuracy when the executor is small. Across all four, process adherence rises significantly (76-95% to 95-99%) and ungrounded answers (correct outputs produced without executing the SOP) near-vanish, falling from 2.1-4.5% to 0.2-0.3% of trials (all 95% CIs exclude zero); under prompt-based delivery, 31-49% of correct answers on know_your_business bypass the SOP entirely, even for the frontier executor. Accuracy is where the executor's capability enters: the lightweight executor gains +6.5pp grounded accuracy because supplying the process externally removes a reconstruction burden it cannot carry, while capable ones trade a small raw-accuracy decrement for a predictable, auditable process.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Do LLM Agents Execute the Plans They Declare? From Planning-Mode Declaration to Pattern-Specific Execution
  2. 2026Compile, Then Page: Executable SOP Programs and a Capability-Gated Runtime for Procedural LLM Agents
  3. 2026Callability Is Not Operability: Controlled Interface Interventions for LLM Agents
  4. 2026Tool-Making and Self-Evolving LLM Agents in Low-Latency Systems
  5. 2026Toward Safe LLM Agents: A Survey of Specification, Verification, and Enforcement
  6. 2025Routine: A Structural Planning Framework for LLM Agent System in Enterprise
  7. 2026AgentProcessBench: Diagnosing Step-Level Process Quality in Tool-Using Agents
  8. 2026Progressive Crystallization: Turning Agent Exploration into Deterministic, Lower-Cost Workflows in Production