Business Compromise Detection with Agentic AI and LLM-driven Knowledge Discovery

AI agents now hold spend authority and settle payments without per-action human confirmation. The resulting loss is often not a security failure: a counterparty with the correct domain, the correct settlement address and a genuinely delivered service can charge more than it should, and no check keyed on identity will see it. We present three artefacts for measuring and reducing that loss. First, a taxonomy of agentic commerce fraud that separates five observation levels (agent reasoning, wire, settlement rail, counterparty, principal) from the request-level and history-level evidence available at each, and records which levels can observe which attacks. Second, Agentic Commerce Bench (ACB), a benchmark of twenty fraud classes generated from production aggregates, 1,647 catalogued service operations and 1,068 settlements, of which six involve a counterparty that is exactly who it claims to be. Third, gordonguard, an open-source detector stack and offline harness with which an operator can audit an agent configuration, replay hostile counterparties without an account, and run the same detectors inline. Calibrating to a stated false-positive budget on clean training traffic gives a 6.5% clean flag rate, replicated across three independent generations, and leaves eight of twenty classes no better than chance. On the four classes a reasoning layer can observe, a widely used agent security scanner run over its jailbreak-detection panel scores zero on all four, while correctly scoring 1.0 on a jailbreak supplied as a control. A measured median payment of $0.007 places a hard constraint on deployment: one human review costs 143 times the value of the payment it examines.

While Large Language Model (LLM) agents have made remarkable progress on complex reasoning, evaluating them in real-world environments remains an open problem. Existing benchmarks are largely confined to idealized simulations and fail to capture specialized domains such as advertising and marketing analytics, where tasks require multi-round interaction with professional tools and where ground-truth answers quickly become obsolete as data and platform rules evolve. To address this, we propose AD-Bench, a benchmark built from real user marketing-analysis requests on a production advertising platform. AD-Bench introduces two key designs: (i) a dynamic ground-truth pipeline that replays expert tool-call trajectories to regenerate answers consistent with the current environment, mitigating answer obsolescence; and (ii) a trajectory-aware evaluation that jointly measures end-to-end answer correctness (Pass@k) and trajectory coverage. Requests are stratified into three difficulty levels (L1-L3) to probe multi-round, multi-tool collaboration. Experiments show that the best model, Claude-Opus-4.7, attains Pass@1 = 76.9% and Pass@3 = 80.4% with 82.7% trajectory coverage overall, yet drops sharply on L3 to Pass@1 = 61.4% and Pass@3 = 65.1%, revealing that even state-of-the-art agents have substantial gaps in complex advertising analytics.

Multi-agent LLM pipelines increasingly span organisational boundaries; when a fault surfaces, someone must determine where it entered. The artifact available is rarely a full execution trace: it is the reports each agent filed, and a filed report can state a conclusion alongside its observations. Using a pre-registered, institutionally partitioned pipeline of six agents with process-level information boundaries, balanced defect injection and matched clean twins (345,600 requests per chain model, two models), we first report that our pre-registered hypothesis -- that collective responsibility framing degrades escalation with chain length -- is not supported. The layer nevertheless fails asymmetrically. It originates almost nothing: zero allegations across 7,996 clean episodes where every agent stayed silent. It filters upstream error poorly, naming an innocent party in 34.4% and 62.6% of clean episodes where an agent raised a false alarm. Conditional on no agent proposing the true origin (59.5% of episodes on one chain model), an auditor reading the reports recovers it in 4.1% of cases -- below a uniform guess (20%) and the best fixed-link accuser (31.0%) -- while reaching 60.3% from the raw documentation of the same episodes. Deleting one clause, the field carrying the agents' own conclusion, isolates the cause at constant observations: accuracy rises to 45.2% (+41.2 pp, 95% CI +35.3 to +46.9) and adherence collapses from 94.4% to 3.4%; where the suggestion was correct the same deletion instead costs accuracy, 70.5% to 55.7%. The harm replicates on two frontier auditors in four conditions out of four (+8.5 to +39.0 pp) and in a second domain (+47.7 and +61.1 pp), where the cost disappears. The net effect is governed by upstream reliability together with both conditional magnitudes. An accountability layer needs evidence sufficiently independent of the conclusions it verifies.