Non-Degenerate Risk Certification for Automated Security Decisions: A Decision-Contract Theory with ATT\&CK-Aligned Triage as a Worked Instance

Autonomous security agents operate as staged pipelines, such as classifying network traffic and then attributing attacks to a specific technique. Split conformal prediction gives each stage finite-sample coverage, but deployment requires a trajectory-level guarantee across the full chain. These guarantees do not compose automatically when stages are independently trained and calibrated. Bonferroni allocation is distribution-free but conservative under correlated errors. We show that a natural pairwise-correlation extension to three or more stages is invalid because it gives a lower rather than an upper bound, and derive a valid spanning-tree alternative. We distinguish whether stages are dependent from whether an audit sample is large enough to certify that dependence, and give matching upper and information-theoretic lower sample-complexity bounds. We also show that coarse-to-fine label selection can create near-perfect measured correlation without learned dependence. On a two-stage intrusion-detection pipeline across 6 open LLMs and 2 datasets, removing this artifact reduces measured correlation from near 1 to 0-0.78. A direct audit of trajectory failure becomes 13.7% tighter than Bonferroni once the audit reaches the required sample size, but is worse when undersized. A modular certificate using per-stage certificates and a pairwise overlap bound yields a positive average gain of 0.6%, quantifying the cost of lacking joint access. Same-model, cross-model, and permuted-pairing tests show that residual dependence reflects shared sample difficulty, not shared model representations. Average trajectory coverage across 12 configurations is 92.7% +/- 2.4% at alpha = 0.10. Under cross-dataset deployment, single-step miscoverage reaches 100% even when accuracy remains 78%, showing that distribution shift destroys calibrated confidence before raw accuracy.

Modern decision systems increasingly rely on learned components whose outputs may be confident yet wrong, exposing downstream actions to costly errors. We introduce Risk-Aware Causal Gating (RACG), a framework that decides whether to act on, defer, or abstain from a model's prediction by combining causal effect estimation with calibrated risk control. RACG models the causal pathway from candidate actions to outcomes and gates each decision according to an estimated counterfactual risk rather than raw predictive confidence. To make gating reliable, we derive distribution-free bounds on the probability of acting under high-risk conditions and show how these bounds translate into operating thresholds that satisfy user-specified safety constraints. We further propose an adaptive gating policy that adjusts to distribution shift by monitoring discrepancies between predicted and realized outcomes, tightening the gate when causal assumptions appear violated. Across simulated interventions and real-world decision benchmarks, RACG reduces high-cost errors substantially while preserving most of the utility of an ungated policy, and it outperforms confidence-based and selective-prediction baselines at matched abstention rates. Our results indicate that explicitly separating causal risk from predictive uncertainty yields decision systems that are both safer and more transparent, offering a principled mechanism for trustworthy automation in high-stakes settings.

Large language models (LLMs) deployed for structured generation (NER, JSON extraction, QA, and classification) lack formal reliability guarantees, and standard heuristic abstention policies miss user-specified risk targets by 7.5--12.5%. We characterize when conformal risk control (CRC) can certify structured LLM outputs and when it provably cannot. First, we prove an impossibility result: when the base risk (μ> α), any distribution-free method must abstain on at least ((μ-α)/(1-α)) examples, yielding a closed-form feasibility test: one can check whether CRC will work before running it. Second, we analyze a certification hierarchy across Hoeffding, empirical Bernstein, and a betting-based e-CRC bound, with strict gains in low-variance/large-sample regimes: the Hoeffding-to-Bernstein step delivers the largest gain (+37% certified configurations), while e-CRC adds value when calibration data is scarce (10% certification at 20% data versus 0% for Hoeffding). Third, we validate adaptive conformal inference (ACI) under cross-dataset shift, reducing risk-target violations from 71% to 21%, with residual failures concentrated exactly where the impossibility bound predicts. Across six open-weight models (3B--72B parameters), eight datasets, four tasks, and six nonconformity scores, hard NER/QA/CLS configurations are uncertifiable at (α= 0.10); relaxing to (α= 0.30--0.40) unlocks practical certification (47% NER, 40% QA, 60% CLS). The framework gives a three-step deployment recipe: check feasibility, select the bound and score, then mitigate shift.