Beyond Approved Actions: Runtime Validation of Persistent Outcomes in Agent Workflows

Language-model agents increasingly participate in operational workflows where approvals, binds, and payments create commitments. An approval valid when issued may no longer authorize execution after relevant facts, evidence, policy, or authority change. We call this the evaluation--execution gap. We specify a state-bound runtime assurance layer that separates probabilistic measurement from deterministic adjudication, binds an execution allowance to the decision-relevant basis of an approval, invalidates that allowance after relevant logged changes, and rechecks admissibility at dispatch. This distinguishes the continued validity of a prior approval from a current-state policy check. We describe eight failure modes, an assurance model, a reference architecture, and prospective interventions with retrospective remediation. In a scripted 42-case replay, the state-bound configuration identifies 15 later-invalidated approvals that a deliberately non-re-evaluating point-in-time comparator does not revisit; it holds 14 affected actions before dispatch and compensates one landed effect. These results illustrate behavior under the stipulated policies and event orders, not superiority over dispatch-time enforcement designs or production effectiveness. Under explicit interception, ingestion, dependency, and serialization assumptions, the model establishes dispatch-time validity within the registered execution surface.

LLM agents can commit durable effects from authority evidence that was valid earlier in execution: a DOM snapshot, approval epoch, version witness, branch token, or worker result. We study the commit boundary at which earlier authority evidence no longer authorizes a durable effect. We call this property commit-time authorization: a durable effect is authorized only if the witness that licensed its derived state remains fresh, causally prior, bound to the same effect, and eligible at commit time. We build a controlled-invalidation suite spanning browser, tool/API, and multi-agent workflows. The suite preserves the user goal and payload shape while invalidating the authority relation before durability. In the primary 54-task matrix, endpoint success remains high: 262/270 runs reach the visible result. Only 55/270 are authorized completions; among the 216 invalidating rows, 207 commit after the authorizing path has failed. All 54 clean controls remain authorized, and a separate 54-run authority-preserving check produces no unauthorized commits. We then evaluate mitigation families. Prompt caution and single-condition checks are insufficient because different hazards break different boundary conditions. Defenses work when they refresh, rebind, replan, or refuse at the durability boundary. CommitGuard, a fail-closed boundary monitor, blocks stale durable-effect attempts on protected commit surfaces when runtimes emit witness, dependency, binding, and eligibility signals. The result is a reporting and runtime-design lesson: endpoint success is a utility metric; authorized commit is a security property.

Long-running AI agents may read state, reason, wait for tools or human approval, and perform an external action much later. The state that justified the action can change in the meantime. For example, after an agent proposes an 80 GBP refund under a limit of 100, a customer-name change affects only presentation metadata, a new limit of 90 still permits the refund, a limit of 50 invalidates it, and a refund issued by another worker must prevent a duplicate. Standard optimistic concurrency control and version checks can detect that previously read state has changed, but by themselves do not determine whether that change invalidates the pending action's justification. We call any detected version change a version conflict; when that change invalidates the action's justification, it is also a decision conflict. ATR records the explicit, executable conditions that justify a pending action and rechecks only the conditions affected by a change before releasing the external operation. It can retain the action, refresh non-decisive metadata, require replanning, or block execution; a target-side transaction or compare-and-set binds checked state to commit. Across 210,000 controlled executions over 15 mutation cases, ATR matched every developer-specified outcome with no false allows or blocks. In ten durable SQLite checkpoint/resume cells, it evaluated 0.6 conditions per change versus 6.0 for FullScan. At 4,093 recorded reads, ATR took 9.3 microseconds versus 2595.9 microseconds for FullScan. These deterministic results establish controlled feasibility, not production generality or automatic extraction of the required conditions.