Cross-View Correspondence Is a Measurement Intervention: Two-Sided Validation for Agent Evaluation and Credit Assignment

Reusing evaluator-derived step rewards across evaluation channels raises a measurement question: does the assigned direction remain stable? We define Agent Step Value (ASV) as a channel-indexed before/after target-margin gain and identify the state-by-channel interaction from a matched 2x2 design. Across frozen PubMed question-answering transitions, cross-channel gain signs disagree on 48.3% of comparisons, compared with 0.3% for same-channel retries. Transition interactions are nearly balanced in sign (median +0.014; 10% trimmed mean -0.033), but asymmetric negative magnitudes produce a positive direct mean and a negative generated-view mean under the empirical target mixture. Equal-target weighting preserves a negative mean interaction but not this strict mean reversal. Matched retrieval designs localize the negative component to the generated-view coordinate and retain its direction across three sign checks that vary readout and evaluator stack. In a matched 512-token source-contract follow-up, source-only generation restores the positive mean direction on artifact-bearing retrievals and removes parser-detected support claims from artifact-free before-state views. These results support an explanation in which generated support inflates the pre-retrieval baseline. The resulting audit can localize channel sensitivity and test an intervention before step rewards are reused.

Deterministic benchmark scores show that an agent received credit, but not whether that credit was earned, reported honestly, or would hold on a second run. We introduce a Trust Layer for Agent Evaluation, an additive post-hoc framework that reports, beside each recorded score, whether it should be believed. It verifies four properties: whether the result is supported by the benchmark's own grading logic, whether a passing answer was earned through traceable computation, whether the agent's completion claim matches what occurred, and whether the result is stable under repeated execution. The first three use only saved artifacts; the fourth re-runs the agent. Model judgments only label evidence under majority voting; all verdicts follow deterministic rules and never modify the recorded score. Applied to five agent configurations on 108 tasks from Agents' Last Exam, every model shows passing runs with no traceable computation (at rates varying tenfold), confirmed false completion claims, and unstable results: 18-46% of tasks do not stay in one score band over five runs. Only 22.6% of recorded passes clear all four checks (95% CI 15.0-32.6, n=84). Measuring what an agent can do and verifying that it did it are different problems, and current benchmarks address only the first.

Verifier scores now serve as both benchmark metrics and training rewards for large language model (LLM) agents, and a change in score is routinely read as a change in capability. It may instead reflect a change in the evaluation. We introduce TRACE, a protocol that turns a score change from a verdict into a testable diagnosis: it applies a targeted change to one part of an evaluation, compares paired runs, checks whether the agent's behavior changed, and rescores unchanged trajectories to test whether the scoring rule is responsible. In a controlled suite of 25 synthetic tasks, renaming tools lowers a scripted agent's score by 0.250 even though it performs exactly the same operations; restoring the original names at scoring time closes the entire gap, while the same mutation exposes a genuine behavioral failure in a second agent. On public $τ^2$-bench tasks with four LLM agents, an initial 30-task study finds mixed reward changes whose one clear effect does not replicate. In a larger follow-up on 88 new tasks with repeated runs per condition, renaming tools or reformatting tool outputs leaves reward unchanged to within $\pm$0.10 for seven of eight agent-change pairs, whereas tool names that deliberately mislead lower every agent's reward by 0.20-0.44, showing that the setup can detect real effects. Identical reruns flip 15-36% of task outcomes, so single-run comparisons cannot separate presentation effects from run-to-run variation. Two frontier LLM judges give consistent verdicts when a fixed trajectory is presented differently, yet disagree with each other on 57% of the same records, largely because one grades procedure rather than outcome. TRACE thus separates what a score change says about the agent from what it says about the measurement.