DFAH-Bench: Benchmarking Observable Agent Instability in Financial Decision-Making

Tool-using agents can repeat a final decision while changing their recorded execution. We introduce the Determinism-Faithfulness Assurance Harness (DFAH), a framework that distinguishes decision repeatability, trajectory agreement, and evidence-conditioned faithfulness. Task correctness requires separately qualified labels and evaluation; evidence-conditioned faithfulness was not evaluated in the historical v2 agentic experiments. The original v2 study reported 4,705 agentic runs in three synthetic financial tasks and a decision-determinism/task-label-match correlation of r = -0.11 across 21 model-benchmark configuration summaries. This statistic is reproducible from the historical configuration table, but includes a subsequently excluded portfolio fixture. It is retained as a historical description, not evidence of statistical independence, predictive uselessness, or an architectural determinism-accuracy tradeoff. Recorded decision concentration and tool-path variation do not identify hidden model strategy. This correction qualifies the historical evidence and removes the deployment recommendations derived from those unsupported interpretations. A separate corrected study, DFAH-Bench (arXiv:2607.20491), provides qualified evidence of decision/path disagreement. The contribution retained here is a measurement framework: repeatability, observable execution, evidence alignment, and correctness require distinct evidence, with explicit capture and study boundaries.

A merchant's payment processor, ledger, ERP and bank feed are updated by messages that get delayed, duplicated, dropped and reordered, so for minutes at a time the four hold contradictory beliefs about the same order. An agent resolving the exception must decide whether to ship goods, re-submit a capture, refund or wait, knowing some of those cannot be undone. We present FinalityBench, an executable benchmark for that decision. It keeps a hidden canonical event log and derives each system's view from a separately faulted delivery stream, so disagreement follows from specified fault semantics rather than being authored. Grading is on executed monetary effects: an episode is scored by the merchant's terminal economic position, relative to a privileged reference told when the pending capture resolves. The corpus of 321 tasks includes 45 twin pairs (90 tasks): tasks whose four system views are identical at the decision instant, whose authoritative probes both return unknown, and whose eventual correct dispositions differ. That snapshot indistinguishability is checked under every evaluation seed rather than assumed; equivalence over all interaction traces is not claimed. Over 14,445 graded episodes from nine programmatic policies, ranking by single-task accuracy and by paired loss disagree in 7 places: a ship-on-first-sign policy is second-best by accuracy at 65.7% and worst in the suite by paired loss, because it cannot tell the two members apart. A runtime gating irreversible actions on an authoritative finality probe reaches 85.4% and, unlike every polling policy, loses nothing to pass^5; its residual loss is almost entirely one archetype, which prices finality information directly. Language models reach the same exact rate as the hand-written gate on a stratified subset, lose about twice as much money, and discover the finality-gating strategy without being told it.

Agentic AI failures need post-hoc reconstruction: what the agent did, on whose authority, against which policy, and from what reasoning. Cross-regime feasibility remains unmeasured under one property-level schema. We apply the Decision Trace Reconstructor unmodified to pinned worked-example anchors from six public vendor SDK regimes spanning cloud-agent, observability, tool-use, telemetry, and protocol traces, plus two comparator columns. Each Decision Event Schema (DES) property is classified as fully fillable, partially fillable, structurally unfillable, or opaque. Per-property reconstructability of an agent decision already varies between regimes at this anchor scale. Strict-governance-completeness separates into three tiers ranging from 42.9% to 85.7%, yielding one regime-independent gap (reasoning trace), four regime-dependent gaps, and one Mixed property; the pilot is single-annotator, one anchor per cell, descriptive, with outputs checksum-verifiable from a deposited reproducibility package.