Runtime Control for AI Agents: Closing the Evaluation--Execution Gap in Operational Workflows

Agent systems increasingly execute rather than advise. When an AI agent queries regulated data, invokes effectful tools, and mutates persistent state, correctness is not captured by whether a terminal output looks plausible. The operative questions are whether each step was authorized under a contract, whether the recorded history is tamper-evident, and whether the trajectory can be reconstructed deterministically. We formalize this as runtime proof of execution. An execution is a triple $x = (C, T, R)$: a contract $C$, an Execution Causal Event Stream (ECES) $T$, and a replay context $R$. A well-formedness predicate and five validator-checkable invariants form the PoE validity predicate. Five semantic guarantees describe authorization, path compliance, null effect on deny, history integrity, and replayability. We prove soundness under explicit cryptographic and deployment assumptions: any PPT adversary that produces a PoE-valid execution violating a semantic guarantee yields a signature forgery, a hash collision, or a quantified deployment-failure event. The Prime Execution Model (PEM) separates planning, enforcement, effect, and recordkeeping into distinct authority planes; a lemma reduces trace completeness to Effector-exclusive credentialing. An Execution Attestation Certificate is issued only when PoE = 1. In a single-node TypeScript prototype, PoE adds approximately 2.7 ms on a minimal flow and 4.4% overhead on concurrent batch workloads; a standard eight-event trace compresses to approximately 1.1 KB; injected Gateway-bypass and trace-mutation attacks are rejected. PoE does not replace consensus, TEEs, or zkVMs; it binds authorization, effect, history, and replay into a single runtime-checkable object so that governed execution becomes attestable under contract.

Large language model agents increasingly act on software systems, no longer merely generating text but also changing databases and online services. However, an approved database update may succeed yet leave an unapproved notification because execution can produce persistent effects beyond the requested change. Current safeguards can approve an action or record its aftermath, but without checking the persistent result before continuation, an unapproved outcome can be accepted as success and propagated to later steps. We present EffectMatch, a runtime that collects persistent changes within a controlled execution boundary and compares them with what the application approved for the current state and execution. The comparison governs commit and dependent execution. In comparative evaluation on 206 public business tasks, EffectMatch preserved all clean executions and prevented all tested incorrect commits. Six 20-run ablations exposed the failure caused by each removed mechanism, while 80 task-topology cases preserved truthful handoffs and blocked invalid continuation. Together, these results show that EffectMatch blocks the silent acceptance and downstream propagation of persistent outcomes inconsistent with application approval.

AI agents -- systems that plan, reason, and act using large language models -- produce non-deterministic, path-dependent behavior that cannot be fully governed at design time, where with governed we mean striking the right balance between as high as possible successful task completion rate and the legal, data-breach, reputational and other costs associated with running agents. We argue that the execution path is the central object for effective runtime governance and formalize compliance policies as deterministic functions mapping agent identity, partial path, proposed next action, and organizational state to a policy violation probability. We show that prompt-level instructions (and "system prompts"), and static access control are special cases of this framework: the former shape the distribution over paths without actually evaluating them; the latter evaluates deterministic policies that ignore the path (i.e., these can only account for a specific subset of all possible paths). In our view, runtime evaluation is the general case, and it is necessary for any path-dependent policy. We develop the formal framework for analyzing AI agent governance, present concrete policy examples (inspired by the AI act), discuss a reference implementation, and identify open problems including risk calibration and the limits of enforced compliance.