Beyond Agent Harnesses: Cross-Substrate Authority for Multi-Agent Systems
Authors: Yang Li, Sergey Volkov, Hai Liu, Zongsi Xu, Xiyu Chen, Tuo Zhou, Dian Shao, Hao Sun, +1 more
Abstract
Agentic systems persist model-visible memory while mutating workspaces, while a runtime, registry, or approval service may hold authority state outside both. Identical final files can then require opposite safe actions. We call this the cross-substrate authority gap: decision- relevant authorization information resides outside the planner-visible workspace or memory state. Across two controlled mini-benchmark families, three experiments compare planner-observation augmentation with an execution-time authority check using real Git lineage, durably recorded agent execution attempts, deterministic oracles, and two model routes. Experiment 1 is a 128-cell controlled evidence ablation: authority-blind candidate evidence obtains 0/32 final semantic success, while raw receipts and a typed relation both obtain 32/32. The missing authority fact accounts for the gain; typed packaging provides no observed planning-accuracy gain over equal raw information. Experiment 2 uses 96 planning calls: workspace-visible evidence yields 12/16 unsafe publication decisions, and planning with the typed relation remains unreliable (15/32 first actions correct; 11/32 invalid or absent). Experiment 3 replays the same 32 fixed model-generated first-action intents with zero additional model calls; a deterministic execution guard prevents all six unsafe intents from becoming effects and permits all 12 valid authorized publish intents. These results position authority enforcement at the mutation boundary as the operational endpoint of memory governance.
The security discussion around agentic AI focuses heavily on prompt injection. This paper argues that multi-agent systems also create a distinct authorization problem: maintaining authorization invariants as non-human principals retrieve data, delegate tasks, and synthesize results across changing boundaries. We call this problem authorization propagation. It is not reducible to prompt injection and is not fully addressed by classical access-control models such as RBAC, ABAC, or ReBAC. The paper formalizes authorization propagation as a workflow-level property, identifies three sub-problems (transitive delegation, aggregation inference, and temporal validity), and derives seven structural requirements for authorization architectures in multi-agent AI systems. Recent work on invocation-bound capability tokens, task-scoped authorization envelopes, dependency-graph policy enforcement, and execution-count revocation demonstrates that the field is converging on the problem, but not yet on a complete architecture. The central claim is that identity governance must be treated as infrastructure: evaluated continuously, enforced at every interaction boundary, and designed into the system before orchestration logic is allowed to scale. Preliminary implementation evidence from a production enterprise AI platform shows that ordinary system behavior, not only adversarial action, already produces the failures this model predicts.
Multi-agent systems (MAS) decompose long-horizon tasks across supervisors and subagents, but delegated goals do not necessarily carry their original authorization boundaries. Existing safety benchmarks mainly study adversarial compromise, while work on constraint drift lacks controlled architecture-level evaluation. We introduce MasDrift, a benchmark of 600 benign productivity tasks across eight domains. Each task pairs required work with reserved actions. MasDrift compares single-agent, centralized, and decentralized coordination while varying hierarchy depth and peer width, measuring task completion and authorization preservation. Across generic multi-agent conditions, centralized hierarchies achieve 93.9--98.6% task completion versus 85.7--87.0% for peer networks, while unauthorized actions occur in 2.7--19.8% of tasks versus 0.6--0.8%, a gap that widens with hierarchy depth. We further compare two defenses that differ in where authorization evidence resides. One re-anchors every pending call to the original user request. The other carries an attenuated policy along the delegation chain. Re-anchoring reduces unauthorized actions in every model configuration we evaluate, at a cost of 1.6 points of pooled completion. Chain propagation blocks required work instead, forfeiting up to 36.3 points. A heterogeneous case study confirms that the failure follows from coordination rather than model strength. MasDrift exposes a centralization tradeoff and makes authorization preservation a measurable property of MAS design.
Long-running LLM agents rely on persistent memory to carry state across interactions, including permissions, restrictions, and revocations. When memory misrepresents this evolving authorization state, the agent's own records can grant authority that the underlying history never permitted, resulting in misaligned behavior without any external attacks. We term this failure endogenous authorization laundering, where spurious permissions written into memory lead to unauthorized actions as their provenance is washed away. We then introduce EAL-Bench, which measures how accurately persistent memory preserves evolving authorization state and whether errors propagate to downstream unauthorized actions. We evaluate five LLMs as memory writers and two as executors across procurement, cybersecurity, and finance. We find that under incremental memory updates, writers create false authority for up to 50.2% of unauthorized requests; once false authority is present, executors act on it in 98.6% of trials. Two safeguards, requiring stored permissions to be backed by valid source events, and tracking permission changes through bounded event sourcing, substantially reduce laundering, but both also reject more legitimate actions, exposing a safety-utility tradeoff. Persistent memory is therefore not merely a performance component, but a part of an LLM agent's effective authorization policy.