Hard-Gate Candidacy in a Deployed Validator Suite

Coding agents can return plausible patches that omit required behavior. These failures are hard to review because long traces and confident summaries often hide what was missed. We ask when a nominally weaker reviewer can reliably decide whether a patch solves its issue. We study 411 execution-labeled traces from three agents and 101 controlled cases. On 154 GPT-5.4 traces, structured but unchecked evidence raises both defect catch and over-rejection. We then provide official execution evidence as an upper-bound diagnostic. After choosing and freezing one of two formats per reviewer, five of six reviewers improve both rates on 122 held-out traces; two classify every trace correctly. Reviewer size is not a consistent predictor of quality. Because official tests are unavailable in deployment, we also evaluate a frozen cascade with patch-caused static errors and generated tests that first fail on the unpatched repository. On 121 scored held-out GPT-5.4 traces and 59 Gemini traces, its coverage is 0.89 and 0.86, risk is 0.33 and 0.26, catch is 0.76 and 0.80, and over-rejection is 0.66 and 0.67. Most false rejections occur when unresolved cases reach the reviewer. Official execution evidence shows the potential of weak review when decisive checks are available. Producing equally reliable checks without official tests remains the main bottleneck.

As multi-agent systems move from short interactions to tool-using workflows with specialized roles and persistent state, completion becomes a runtime-control problem rather than a purely generative one. This preprint studies verify-gated completion as an admission-control pattern for governed multi-agent runtimes: agents may propose completion, but a read-only verifier decides whether the claim is admitted. Ambiguous or weakly evidenced cases resolve fail-closed, while packetized state and event traces preserve an audit path. We examine one bounded reference implementation and ask what the released evidence can support about auditable, verify-gated completion. In the released verify-completed slice, the known-outcome invoked-event verify success share was 1,791/1,800 = 99.5%. This is an accounting measure over invoked verification events, not a task-completion, production-reliability, or benchmark-success rate. Task-level verify coverage is not computable; 1,762/1,801 rows came from one high-volume reporting cluster; and only 17 events were production-classified. A shadow Policy/Governance Verifier evaluation showed 1,526/1,548 = 98.58% rule agreement, 0/1,526 false-success among safe-to-proceed predictions, and blocked precision of 2/518 = 0.39%, so it remains advisory. The evidence supports a narrow conclusion: under observed conditions, a read-only verify gate plus packetized admission records made completion decisions inspectable and fail-closed. Claims about deployed operation, safety guarantees, outcome gains, task-level coverage, recovery effectiveness, or external validity remain outside scope.

Agent frameworks ship quality gates that compare text blocks by embedding-cosine similarity and decide at a fixed cutoff. Deduplication filters, semantic caches, drift guards, and answer grader gates deploy to answer the question: "Does this text still mean the same thing?" But the score answers a different question: "How much did the wording change?" We audit this gate class as a measurement instrument. In the cases these gates exist to catch, the two can run in opposite ways. Many times, reversing an instruction is a single word edit, while agreement often rephrases a sentence. The consequence is a safety check that fires backwards. The production drift guard we audited caught 0 of 56 meaning-breaking mutations, and one approved item, "withhold the study drug" -> "administer the study drug", came in at cosine 0.9608. We observed five shipped operating points, and balanced accuracy across 90 configuration-threshold-task cells never exceeded 0.700 (median 0.525). The same confounder also corrupted evaluations. A naively built corpus inherits this confounder and can return an inverted verdict, with a decision AUROC exactly 0.000 in 13 of 18 configuration-task cells (at most 0.040 in all 18) against 0.440-0.815 for the same nine configurations under a balanced 2x2 design. Twice in the effort it captured our own headline claims. Obvious repairs fail: an encoder swap and an overlap-conditioned gate (0.750 in-sample, 0.533 held-out) land at chance on separately authored held-out data, and an NLI drop-in did no better. Embeddings do still bear hope here, as the strongest two of nine configurations separated reversal from paraphrase at matched overlap (AUROC 0.79-0.90), but only a matched-pair audit reveals the deployment regime. We release the corpus method, harness, and frozen results, and contend that scores gated this way measure the wrong thing. We believe a valid instrument is buildable.