I keep coming back to a simple principle:
0 = 0.
By that, I mean something very specific: at the final execution boundary, if an action cannot be verified as allowed, uncertainty should not be interpreted as permission.
In security, I don’t think a probabilistic “probably safe” should be enough to authorize real-world execution.
For an autonomous agent capable of changing its execution path, chaining tools, or taking unexpected actions, the gray zone between allowed and not allowed may itself become part of the attack surface. That raises a question I’ve been thinking about:
Can a probabilistic LLM-based defender reduce that gray zone all the way to zero?
Or does the final execution boundary require something different — a deterministic decision where an action is either verifiably allowed or it does not execute?
I built EGA V9 to investigate this question:
I’m not asking you to assume that my approach is correct. I’d genuinely like to know where the reasoning, implementation, or execution boundary breaks.
What am I missing?