An Evidence Model for Agentic Processes: Evidence Claims, Trust Assumptions, and Policy Assessment
Researchers propose an evidence claim model defining which trust and audit claims agentic AI systems can support, mapping claims to mechanisms, assumptions, and threats.
The paper proposes an evidence claim model for agentic AI processes that exchange messages, invoke tools, request approvals, and modify shared artifacts. It distinguishes claim types such as artifact integrity, provenance, approval evidence, and policy assessment, mapping each to mechanisms, assumptions, limitations, and threats. It stresses that hashes, signatures, and external anchors do not establish semantic truth, authorization, or capture completeness. The contribution is conceptual, offering vocabulary for what an agentic black box can and cannot evidence and which controls must surround it.
- Defines taxonomy of evidence claims for agentic processes
- Maps claims to mechanisms, assumptions, limitations, and threats
- Notes hashes and signatures do not prove semantics or authorization
- Proposes agent organization with executive, evidence, and audit roles
Full article190 words · extracted from arxiv.org · click to collapse
Agentic AI systems increasingly exchange messages, invoke tools, request approvals, hold structured decision sessions, and modify shared artifacts. Logs and anchors can make selected records tamper-evident, but they can also mislead if their evidentiary meaning is implicit: a hash does not establish semantic truth, a signature does not establish authorization, and an external anchor does not establish capture completeness. This paper proposes an evidence claim model for agentic processes. It distinguishes artifact integrity, temporal existence, provenance, approval evidence, declared ordering, capture claim, relevance claim, deliberation traceability, monitoring claim, anchoring authorization claim, policy assessment claim, risk treatment claim, mitigation implementation claim, and management response claim. Semantic validity is treated as a recurring limitation. The model maps these claims to mechanisms, assumptions, limitations, and threats, and situates them in an agent organization with functional CEO agent, executive, operational, evidence, and audit roles, plus a plan-do-check-act-inspired management response loop. The contribution is conceptual: it does not validate a particular implementation, prevent all failures, or automate legal compliance. It provides a vocabulary for stating which claims an agentic black box can support, which claims it cannot establish, and which controls are required around it.
Text extracted automatically; images, tables and formatting may be missing. Original: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.08481