CAGE-1: Control, Assurance, and Governance Evaluation for Enterprise Agentic AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.03510v1
• Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2026 17:37:10 GMT
• Title: CAGE-1: Control, Assurance, and Governance Evaluation for Enterprise Agentic AI
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces CAGE-1: Control, Assurance, and Governance Evaluation for Enterprise Agentic AI.<n>CAGE-1 is an evaluation framework for deciding whether enterprise agents are ready for deployment.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Enterprise artificial intelligence is moving from experimentation into operational workflows. Early programs focused on model access and retrieval-augmented generation, but enterprises are now beginning to deploy agents that plan, retrieve, remember, call tools, update systems, and coordinate work across applications. This changes the evaluation problem. Leaders are no longer asking only whether an answer is accurate or fluent. They need to know who authorized an action, which policy applied, whether evidence was current, whether memory was valid, whether a tool call was permitted, whether the decision can be replayed, and whether the agent can be stopped before it creates business impact. This paper introduces CAGE-1: Control, Assurance, and Governance Evaluation for Enterprise Agentic AI. CAGE-1 is an evaluation framework for deciding whether enterprise agents are ready for deployment. It evaluates authority, policy enforcement, retrieval quality, memory integrity, tool safety, auditability, human oversight, conflict handling, safe failure, Prebind Assurance, operational readiness, and business fitness. CAGE-1 introduces Prebind Assurance to describe the evaluated ability to prove that an agentic action is controlled before it becomes binding, effective, or operationally consequential. The framework tests whether a proposed action is admitted, held, narrowed, refused, escalated, quarantined, or made non-effective before protected consequence forms.

Related papers

• EMERGE-Policy: A Robot Mind Emerges Beyond a Single Policy [48.898967774856466]
  EMERGE-Policy coordinates both capability invocation and information exchange.<n>Main Agent retains task-level state within an active context window.<n>Role-specific Sub Agents process perception, execution monitoring, verification, and memory consolidation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-30T16:46:06Z)
• Stop Shipping AI Agents on Faith: Capability Is Not Production Readiness [0.0]
  This paper introduces the ProofAgent Index (PAI), a governance readiness index for AI agents.<n>PAI combines four dimensions of deployment evidence: Evaluation, Context, Compliance, and Governance.<n>It is implemented inside ProofAgent Harness, an open source infrastructure for auditable AI agent evaluation and governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T04:44:47Z)
• Towards Trustworthy Embodied Intelligence: A Systems Framework and Graded Trustworthiness Levels [53.63220028820581]
  Embodied intelligence integrates learned perception and decision making with real-time computation, control, and physical interaction.<n>We define trustworthy embodied intelligence as the sustained capacity to execute specified tasks reliably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T17:50:44Z)
• Agent Security Needs Redefinition through a Holistic Framework [46.88917910966891]
  Defenses ask whether an instruction looks malicious. Benchmarks ask whether an agent performs a harmful sounding action.<n>We operationalize contextual security through four properties that must hold jointly and be evaluated continuously across the agent's trajectory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-24T06:43:09Z)
• PhyAgentOS: A Self-Evolving Operating System for Embodied Agents with Decoupled Cognitive Planning and Physical Execution [49.776611937968]
  We present PhyAgentOS, a foundation delivering scheduling, verification, memory, benchmarking, and safety as system-level services.<n>Its Session-Centered treats a session, not an action, as the minimum unit of scheduling, compatibility, supervised execution, evidence collection, and acceptance.<n>SessionVerifier distinguishes execution termination from semantic task completion via evidence-grounded verdicts of success, failure, or replan.<n> Benchmarking reuses the deployment session and verification path, so results trace to real execution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-18T04:46:53Z)
• AGL-1: The Enterprise AI Governance Layer as a Control Plane for Trusted Enterprise Intelligence [0.0]
  This paper introduces AGL-1, the Enterprise AI Governance Layer, as a vendor-neutral reference model for the control plane.<n>It defines seven governance domains: identity-aware retrieval, policy enforcement, management, memory governance, knowledge integrity monitoring, agentic execution control, and trust observability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-03T17:42:08Z)
• The Meta-Agent Challenge: Are Current Agents Capable of Autonomous Agent Development? [80.24951682268332]
  We introduce the Meta-Agent Challenge (MAC), an evaluation framework designed to test the capacity of frontier models for autonomous agent development.<n>To ensure evaluation integrity, this framework is secured by multi-layer defenses against reward hacking.<n>We demonstrate that meta-agents rarely match human-engineered baseline policies, and the few that do are dominated by proprietary frontier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T04:58:17Z)
• Proof-Carrying Agent Actions: Model-Agnostic Runtime Governance for Heterogeneous Agent Systems [0.6526824510982799]
  This paper presents Proof-Carrying Agent Actions (PCAA), a runtime-neutral governance model centered on an action certificate.<n>PCAA organizes control around five checkpoints: pre-action admissibility, action open, assumption capture, approval, and outcome closure.<n>We study the model through a reference implementation in a heterogeneous agent control plane and a disclosure-bounded evaluation protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T18:10:35Z)
• Large Language Models for Agentic NetOps and AIOps: Architectures, Evaluation, and Safety [14.195825134031795]
  Large language models are increasingly being used to support network operations (NetOps) and artificial intelligence for IT operations (AIOps)<n>In both NetOps and AIOps, this shift is changing how tasks are managed.<n>Agent-based operations work as managed, from gathering evidence to taking action, following permissions, policies, and checks, and providing rollback options when necessary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T20:31:41Z)
• CORA: Conformal Risk-Controlled Agents for Safeguarded Mobile GUI Automation [68.53387633351484]
  We propose CORA (COnformal Risk-controlled GUI Agent), a post-policy, pre-action safeguarding framework that provides statistical guarantees on harmful executed actions.<n> CORA reformulates safety as selective action execution: we train a Guardian model to estimate action-conditional risk for each proposed step.<n>To rigorously evaluate this paradigm, we introduce Phone-Harm, a new benchmark of mobile safety violations with step-level harm labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-10T09:41:21Z)
• When Actions Go Off-Task: Detecting and Correcting Misaligned Actions in Computer-Use Agents [50.5814495434565]
  This work makes the first effort to define and study misaligned action detection in computer-use agents (CUAs)<n>We identify three common categories in real-world CUA deployment and construct MisActBench, a benchmark of realistic trajectories with human-annotated, action-level alignment labels.<n>We propose DeAction, a practical and universal guardrail that detects misaligned actions before execution and iteratively corrects them through structured feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T18:41:15Z)
• Aegis: Towards Governance, Integrity, and Security of AI Voice Agents [52.7512082818639]
  We propose Aegis, a framework for the governance, integrity, and security of voice agents.<n>We evaluate the framework through case studies in banking call centers, IT Support, and logistics.<n>We observe systematic differences across model families, with open-weight models exhibiting higher susceptibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T05:51:36Z)
• AgentGuardian: Learning Access Control Policies to Govern AI Agent Behavior [20.817336331051752]
  AgentGuardian governs and protects AI agent operations by enforcing context-aware access-control policies.<n>It effectively detects malicious or misleading inputs while preserving normal agent functionality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-15T14:33:36Z)
• AgentGuard: Runtime Verification of AI Agents [1.14219428942199]
  AgentGuard is a framework for runtime verification of Agentic AI systems.<n>It provides continuous, quantitative assurance through a new paradigm called Dynamic Probabilistic Assurance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-28T13:08:50Z)
• SOPBench: Evaluating Language Agents at Following Standard Operating Procedures and Constraints [59.645885492637845]
  SOPBench is an evaluation pipeline that transforms each service-specific SOP code program into a directed graph of executable functions.<n>Our approach transforms each service-specific SOP code program into a directed graph of executable functions and requires agents to call these functions based on natural language SOP descriptions.<n>We evaluate 18 leading models, and results show the task is challenging even for top-tier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T17:53:02Z)
• Safe Reinforcement Learning via Curriculum Induction [94.67835258431202]
  In safety-critical applications, autonomous agents may need to learn in an environment where mistakes can be very costly. Existing safe reinforcement learning methods make an agent rely on priors that let it avoid dangerous situations. This paper presents an alternative approach inspired by human teaching, where an agent learns under the supervision of an automatic instructor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-22T10:48:17Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.