Assessing the Empirical Evidence for Loss of Control from Agentic General-Purpose AI

At present, loss of control risks have gained much prominence in public discussion, particularly in relation to AI, with extensive discourse present among academics, frontier labs, and even governments. However, in the existing literature, the concept seems to rest on surprisingly weak foundations, where even those that discuss loss of control extensively do not first establish what control is and what exactly is being lost. Our paper aims to address these gaps. We establish a working definition of control by anchoring it to the "setting and getting of goals". Then, we discuss various aspects of control, built on foundational concepts from related fields like cybernetics, management control, and control theory. This includes who (or what) can be in control, and the things they require to be in control, such as the ability to set goals, having a functional control loop, having requisite variety, and having sufficient goal alignment. Once a framework for control is established, we then discuss how control can be lost, how AIs can contribute to such loss of control, and offer relevant recommendations for how one can maintain control. One interesting consequence of our work is that humanity, as individuals and as groups, can lose varying degrees of control as a result of AI behaviour that is far below the level of superintelligence; the potential for loss of control scenarios (as we define them) already exist, and have existed for a long time.

Agentic AI systems plan, use tools, maintain state, and act across multi-step workflows with external effects, meaning trustworthy deployment can no longer be judged by task completion alone. The current literature remains fragmented across benchmark-centered evaluation, standards-based governance, orchestration architectures, and runtime assurance mechanisms. This paper contributes a bounded evidence synthesis across a manually coded corpus of twenty-four recent sources. The core finding is a governance-to-action closure gap: evaluation tells us whether outcomes were good, governance defines what should be allowed, but neither identifies where obligations bind to concrete actions or how compliance can later be proven. To close that gap, the paper introduces three linked artifacts: (1) a four-layer framework spanning evaluation, governance, orchestration, and assurance; (2) an ODTA runtime-placement test based on observability, decidability, timeliness, and attestability; and (3) a minimum action-evidence bundle for state-changing actions. Across sources, evaluation papers identify safety, robustness, and trajectory-level measurement as open gaps; governance frameworks define obligations but omit execution-time control logic; orchestration research positions the control plane as the locus of policy mediation, identity, and telemetry; runtime-governance work shows path-dependent behavior cannot be governed through prompts or static permissions alone; and action-safety studies show text alignment does not reliably transfer to tool actions. A worked enterprise procurement-agent scenario illustrates how these artifacts consolidate existing evidence without introducing new experimental data.

Agentic AI systems are being procured for military command and control (C2) under public commitments to rigorous testing and human oversight. Whether such commitments can be discharged depends on their supporting assurance case, which requires three elements: claims specifying the conditions for acceptability, evidence bearing on those claims, and an argument connecting the two. Through a structured review of 240 documented Testing and Evaluation (T&E) practices, spanning eight evaluation dimensions and three lifecycle stages, we identify eight assumptions that established methods make about their test article, grouped into four clusters: system specifiability, stability, composability, and supervisability. Agentic properties weaken all eight assumptions. This erosion affects the argument connecting evidence to claims, not the claims or evidence themselves. As a result, test results may satisfy process requirements, but they do not warrant the inference from tested to fielded behavior. We derive ten assurance claims for the first three assumption clusters and assess whether current and emerging methods can address each, mapping operational consequences through five C2 scenarios. Supervisability is identified but not assessed here, since evidencing it depends on system stability results and human factors T&E methods beyond the present scope. The documented record does not support broad claims about system-level behavior, but narrower claims remain recoverable in principle, contingent on mature methods: bounded mission envelopes, trajectory-grounded correctness, executable runtime constraints, and characterized run-to-run variance. Part of the evidentiary burden shifts into deployment, making the determination to field a continuing act. Where evidence cannot be generated, the residual uncertainty can be governed through defined expiry conditions and assigned ownership.