Evaluating Budgeted Context Projection with Unexecuted Companion Runs

Evaluating interactive agents is expensive. Agent behavior is stochastic, so reliability must be measured over repeated trials, but failures are rare and differ widely in how much they matter. Standard benchmarks spend this budget uniformly: a read-only lookup is sampled as often as an irreversible payment action. We instead formulate evaluation as a sequential allocation problem. Given a fixed trial budget and a set of scenarios whose failure behavior is unknown, which scenarios should be run, and run again? We propose a risk-aware contextual Thompson Sampling policy that combines a pre-execution scenario context vector and a fixed impact score with the failure outcomes observed during evaluation, and we test it by offline replay over 70 $τ$-bench airline scenarios and 824 recorded trials. Our main result is at the smallest budget: with only 50 trials ($6\%$ of the corpus), the policy recovers $86\%$ of the impact-weighted failures an oracle could find, compared to $25\%$ for uniform allocation. It discovers $3.5\times$ more impact-weighted failures (215.4 vs. 62.2) with the same number of trials, delivers $5\times$ the discovery per dollar, and cuts the budget wasted on scenarios that never fail from $34\%$ to $2.8\%$. The rest of our analysis demonstrates and qualifies this result: a budget sweep shows the advantage shrinks as the budget approaches the corpus size, and paired significance tests show that scenario context helps mainly at small budgets while posterior-based exploration helps at moderate ones. Risk-aware adaptive allocation therefore helps most exactly where evaluation budget is scarcest.

Long-horizon benchmarks often show that agents fail more as tasks become longer. This observation is useful for deployment, but it does not by itself explain why failure occurs. More stages create more opportunities for ordinary errors to compound; longer tasks may also contain harder individual decisions or become harder as conversation history, tool outputs, and environment changes accumulate. We use trajectory-induced degradation to mean this last possibility: earlier execution makes later work harder. When the harmful accumulation is specifically the text visible to the model, it is often called context rot. In this position paper, we argue that to claim a "long-horizon failure", benchmarks must compare actual full-task success against a baseline prediction built from short, individual stages. We call the log-ratio between this prediction and actual success the horizon residual. The comparison must use the same agent configuration and specify in advance how stages, checkpoints, information, and budgets will be chosen. The residual shows that the full rollout differs from the chosen baseline; targeted experiments are still needed to explain why.

A correct answer can conceal why an agent succeeded. Once agents change their information state during evaluation, correctness no longer distinguishes intended reasoning from answer acquisition. Outcome evidence and exposure detection do not establish whether success depended on an acquired target; we call this missing evaluation object success provenance. AcquaBench audits it through matched CLEAN, GOLD, and SHAM value substitution on four standardized surfaces with joint qid-clustered analysis. CLEAN retains benchmark-authorized information. GOLD makes the correct target available. SHAM preserves source structure and exposure opportunity but substitutes a matched incorrect value. GOLD minus CLEAN measures the total score response to correct-target availability; GOLD minus SHAM tests whether that response tracks target correctness beyond matched source exposure. In D0, GOLD exceeds SHAM by 19.1 to 25.9 percentage points, showing that success follows the correct value. In D2, GOLD still exceeds SHAM under distributed sufficiency while coloc no longer transfers as a high-score marker, with AUROC 0.376 and 0.142. Behavioral dependence can thus persist beyond this probe's intended observation unit. In model comparison, a supported 5.0-point CLEAN score gap compresses to a raw GOLD difference of -0.6 points without establishing rank inversion. Agent benchmarks should report success together with whether the evaluated information state supported it.