AI losses that arise through an insured organization's generative or agentic AI system require state reconstruction, not merely event reconstruction, because the relevant state changes as the system reasons, retrieves, calls tools, and acts. The relevant question is not only what loss occurred, but what the system was allowed to do, what it actually did, and whether that reconstructed loss can support insurance claim recovery.
arXiv:2606. 03777v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI losses that arise through an insured organization's generative or agentic AI system require state reconstruction, not merely event reconstruction, because the relevant state changes as the system reasons, retrieves, calls tools, and acts.
arXiv:2605. 18784v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The rapid diffusion of agentic AI has created a new coverage problem for commercial insurance: some AI-mediated losses are now affirmatively insured, some create silent-AI exposure under legacy cyber, technology errors-and-omissions (E&O), directors-and-officers (D&O), employment practices liability (EPLI), crime, and media policies, and others are being actively excluded.
arXiv:2606. 05449v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic artificial intelligence (AI) systems are transforming the risk landscape by extending beyond information generation to autonomous planning, tool invocation, decision execution, and persistent modification of digital and physical environments.
arXiv:2608.22160v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Physical automation is scaling toward fleets of embodied machines commanded by an AI brain. Early deployments already run factories and warehouses at p...
arXiv:2609. 11030v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI agents increasingly act through tools and delegated authority, but general incident repositories rarely capture the mechanisms needed to compare public failures with agent-security evaluations.
AI agents increasingly act through tools and delegated authority, but general incident repositories rarely capture the mechanisms needed to compare public failures with agent-security evaluations. We...
The paper reports a failure study of a production agentic software‑delivery platform, analyzing 147 incidents across 81 runs. It shows that the standard reliability primitives—retry, timeout, and error‑rate circuit breaking—fail in practice, leading to costly loops, false trips, and blocked work. The authors identify two cross‑cutting causes—identity adequacy and evidence adequacy—and propose seven new reliability primitives that enforce reliability at the delegation level.
arXiv:2608.22512v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous multi-agent systems nowadays act in finance, software supply chains, and security operations. Already, the first largely AI-orchestrated int...
arXiv:2607. 19292v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current AI safety discourse still focuses disproportionately on visible failures, including obvious harms, dramatic misuse, and hypothetical catastrophic scenarios.
arXiv:2606. 16465v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI agents can now take irreversible actions in operational systems, but agent-caused losses are still not clearly assigned, priced, or transferred.
arXiv:2607. 18243v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic AI is crossing trust boundaries faster than current risk models can represent.
The paper proposes an independence‑graded audit protocol for agentic AI systems, arguing that independence should be evaluated along three orthogonal axes: principal independence, substrate independence, and evidence independence. It introduces a seven‑step protocol based on the beta‑factor model from reliability engineering, demonstrates its application through a structural detectability analysis and a Monte Carlo study, and maps the framework to relevant regulatory standards such as the EU AI Act, ISO/IEC 42006, and UK public‑sector guidance.