RESCUE: Is This Alarm Worth Acting On? Counterfactual Evaluation of VLA Runtime Monitors

Classification accuracy and true-positive and false-positive rates alone do not determine whether restarting an AI agent improves success. Using an exact alarm-to-action identity for an independent clean restart with zero monitoring overhead, we show analytically that a monitor with fixed 90% accuracy can swing from a five-percentage-point loss to a 35-point gain in success rate, depending solely on the replacement attempt's residual-budget success probability. We introduce two techniques for evaluating monitors and progress signals in decision terms. First, a decision-sufficiency criterion, a binary-action specialization of Blackwell's comparison of experiments, identifies which progress representations or context compressions preserve the information needed to choose optimally between the specified actions, independent of trace reconstruction fidelity. Second, a finite-sample, model-free decision audit uses simultaneous binomial intervals over existing agent traces, without additional model calls, to certify a preference for "restart" or "continue" under stated sampling assumptions, or return "abstain" when evidence is insufficient. In a study of 194 externally evaluated model executions on 19 selected SymPy issues from SWE-bench Verified, with a retrospective audit of 130 of these traces, we find a 2.29-point apparent restart gain traced to a single surviving failed attempt, a 42.29-point loss on a second model, no positive replication of the initial gain on prospective task cohorts, and zero of 103 live comparisons meeting the specified certification bar. These results motivate evaluating agent monitors through recovery opportunity, decision value, and statistical support, rather than classification performance alone.

Despite rapid progress, generalist robot policies remain brittle during execution. Reliable deployment therefore requires runtime monitoring that provides timely warnings of failure. Existing monitors commonly estimate risk from current observations or policy signals without explicitly predicting the future consequences of proposed actions. To anticipate such risks before action execution, we introduce ReAP, a future-aware runtime monitoring framework that combines visual failure recognition with action-conditioned failure prediction. Specifically, ReAP first trains a visual detector on successful and failed rollouts to learn a failure-relevant representation space and estimate current risk. An action-conditioned predictor then forecasts the resulting future representation in this space to estimate future failure risk. At runtime, the detector and predictor provide complementary signals for current-state failure recognition and future-aware risk assessment. Experiments across diverse robot policies in simulation and the real world demonstrate that ReAP effectively balances failure-detection accuracy and warning timeliness.

Self-report is the cheapest oversight channel a deployer has, and on capable computer-use agents (CUAs) it fails precisely where oversight matters. On 361 OSWorld tasks our pipeline, a read-only feasibility gate, a planner, and a GUI executor, reaches a mean task score of 82.9, above the 72.4 human reference, yet 64 of its 71 failures (90%) end with a success claim, 61 acknowledging no blocker, and the explicit failure affordance is never used in roughly 9,100 calls. We introduce CURA (Certified Runtime Alarms for Computer-Use Agents), an external monitor that reads only harness-visible telemetry, with no model internals, extra LLM calls, or prompt changes, and turns the running trajectory into a sequential test with certified false-alarm control. At alpha = 0.10 its CUSUM alarm detects 42.3% of failures a median of 31 steps before termination at a realized false-alarm rate of 0.066, and risk is partly resolvable before the first action (gate probe, 0.69 AUROC). Retrospectively the composite reaches 0.828 AUROC (fold-internal floor 0.802), but its margin over a total-token baseline is not significant (Delta = +0.026, p = 0.101); the separation is online, where CURA recalls more at matched certified budgets: 0.41 versus 0.34 at alpha = 0.10, 0.56 versus 0.38 at alpha = 0.20. Alarm-gated mid-execution oversight recovers 23 of 70 failures while spending a frontier overseer on 38, giving a deployable cascade at mean score 86.8 and 84.5% full-solve (305 of 361). The certificate bounds false alarms only. We also report where behavioral monitoring is uninformative.