From Agent Output to Authorized Transition

Autonomous coding agents increasingly execute multi-step software work, but lifecycle states such as reviewed, tested, DONE, and ready-to-merge remain claims unless supported by current evidence. We present Proof-or-Stop Lifecycle Control, a method that permits lifecycle transitions only when fresh, tracked-source-state-bound, mechanically verifiable evidence satisfies the relevant gate. The method treats agent outputs as claims rather than lifecycle state, and uses proof operationally to mean gate-admissible evidence under a stated trust model, not semantic program correctness. We evaluate an open-source implementation through mechanism tests, a powered control-policy ablation, and operated self-application evidence. The unattended-loop engine passed 10 of 10 scenarios with zero false-DONE, and local-key receipt bundles rejected 18 tamper classes with zero false accepts. In a 9,240-cell ablation, the pre-registered A4 versus A2-prime comparison reduced visible-pass/hidden-fail amplification from 31 of 1,800 injected cells under a compute-budgeted naive loop to 2 of 1,800 under the gated loop, a 1.6 percentage-point improvement in not-amplified rate with a 95 percent confidence interval of [0.8, 2.5]. A near-compute A3 versus A4 comparison, 14 of 1,800 versus 2 of 1,800, indicates that the gain is associated with enforcing review as a lifecycle gate rather than merely adding a reviewer. The self-application corpus contains 565 stories and 1,007 review findings, with 94.8 percent resolved, plus a 68-row high/critical cross-vendor exhibit. These results support Proof-or-Stop as a model-agnostic, host-neutral control layer for deciding which autonomous-agent claims a lifecycle may act on. The evaluation is limited to one model family, 24 ablation tasks, and a self-hosted corpus.

Agentic AI coding systems can inspect repositories, plan implementation steps, edit files, call tools, run tests, and submit pull requests. These capabilities make software and hardware development faster in some settings, but current evidence does not support the simple claim that autonomous code generation automatically improves engineering outcomes. Controlled studies report productivity gains in some enterprise tasks, slowdowns in mature open-source work, moderate but heterogeneous meta-analytic effects, and persistent failures in repository setup, dependency handling, permission gating, and hardware verification. This paper argues that the central problem is no longer prompt engineering; it is engineering process control. It synthesizes evidence from agentic software engineering, GitHub-scale adoption studies, repository-level agent configuration, productivity trials, issue-resolution benchmarks, and hardware/RTL verification research. It proposes Agentic Agile-V, a process framework that uses Agile-V as the lifecycle backbone and a task-level SCOPE-V loop - Specify, Constrain, Orchestrate, Prove, Evolve, and Verify - to convert conversational intent into structured engineering artifacts and acceptance evidence. The paper contributes: (i) a taxonomy of minimum input artifacts for agentic software, firmware, and hardware work; (ii) a conversation-to-contract gate that separates exploratory dialogue from implementation; (iii) risk-adaptive feature, bug-fix, testing, and hardware workflows; and (iv) an evidence-bundle acceptance model for agent-generated artifacts. The paper concludes that agentic AI does not eliminate engineering discipline; it increases the value of requirements, constraints, traceability, independent verification, and human approval.

Software development follows an implementation-verification loop in which developers or agents iteratively revise an implementation until an evaluator, such as a test suite, accepts it. The evaluator checks the implementation against a set of requirements under a model of the deployment environment. Yet even a formal proof that the implementation satisfies the requirements under the model cannot guarantee acceptable behavior after deployment. Requirements only approximate stakeholder intent, and the model only approximates the real deployment environment. We call these together - requirement gap and model gap - the two-gap framework, which unifies the main failure modes of agentic software engineer-ing: reward hacking exploits omissions in the requirements or model, while hallucination widens the gaps by fabricating requirements or environment assumptions. Because neither gap can generally be certified closed in an open, changing world, the goal shifts from closing them to continuously narrowing them. We therefore propose an assurance-revision loop that uses deployment evidence to revise the requirements, model, or evaluator when stakeholders reject the resulting behavior. We then cast assured agentic development as a resource-allocation problem over human judgment, agent capability, and compute. The two principal bottlenecks mirror the two gaps: human judgment for the requirement gap and faithful, costly evaluation for the model gap. Reality remains the final verifier: acceptable behavior under actual deployment conditions is the ultimate test, while predeployment evaluations remain proxies for it.