Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Near-Miss: Latent Policy Failure Detection in Agentic Workflows

Ella Rabinovich, David Boaz, Naama Zwerdling, Ateret Anaby-Tavor · Mar 31, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Agentic systems for business process automation often require compliance with policies governing conditional updates to the system state. Evaluation of policy adherence in LLM-based agentic workflows is typically performed by comparing the final system state against a predefined ground truth. While this approach detects explicit policy violations, it may overlook a more subtle class of issues in which agents bypass required policy checks, yet reach a correct outcome due to favorable circumstances. We refer to such cases as $\textit{near-misses}$ or $\textit{latent failures}$. In this work, we introduce a novel metric for detecting latent policy failures in agent conversations traces. Building on the ToolGuard framework, which converts natural-language policies into executable guard code, our method analyzes agent trajectories to determine whether agent's tool-calling decisions where sufficiently informed. We evaluate our approach on the $τ^2$-verified Airlines benchmark across several contemporary open and proprietary LLMs acting as agents. Our results show that latent failures occur in 8-17% of trajectories involving mutating tool calls, even when the final outcome matches the expected ground-truth state. These findings reveal a blind spot in current evaluation methodologies and highlight the need for metrics that assess not only final outcomes but also the decision process leading to them.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
  • The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Agentic systems for business process automation often require compliance with policies governing conditional updates to the system state."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Agentic systems for business process automation often require compliance with policies governing conditional updates to the system state."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Agentic systems for business process automation often require compliance with policies governing conditional updates to the system state."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Agentic systems for business process automation often require compliance with policies governing conditional updates to the system state."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Agentic systems for business process automation often require compliance with policies governing conditional updates to the system state."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Agentic systems for business process automation often require compliance with policies governing conditional updates to the system state.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Agentic systems for business process automation often require compliance with policies governing conditional updates to the system state.
  • Evaluation of policy adherence in LLM-based agentic workflows is typically performed by comparing the final system state against a predefined ground truth.
  • While this approach detects explicit policy violations, it may overlook a more subtle class of issues in which agents bypass required policy checks, yet reach a correct outcome due to favorable circumstances.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Agentic systems for business process automation often require compliance with policies governing conditional updates to the system state.
  • In this work, we introduce a novel metric for detecting latent policy failures in agent conversations traces.
  • We evaluate our approach on the τ^2-verified Airlines benchmark across several contemporary open and proprietary LLMs acting as agents.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • In this work, we introduce a novel metric for detecting latent policy failures in agent conversations traces.
  • We evaluate our approach on the τ^2-verified Airlines benchmark across several contemporary open and proprietary LLMs acting as agents.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.