arXiv:2609.30662v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can plan, use tools, write code, and execute long-horizon workflows, yet strong local competence does not guarantee project-level executive control. Agents may continue acting after the original objective is satisfied, producing low-value refinements, repeated verification, and repairs to self-created complexity. We use LLM Parkinsonism as a narrowly defined, non-clinical metaphor for this pattern of persistent action despite diminishing task-level value. We argue that the problem is not explained by autoregressive next-token prediction alone, but more directly by concentrating proposal generation, scope interpretation, progress assessment, and stopping authority within the same self-conditioned loop. We therefore introduce Global Executive Control (GEC) v0.2, an uncertainty-aware governance architecture that separates action generation from project-level control. In a 24,000-episode matched-candidate benchmark under a common 40,000-token ceiling, a first-candidate baseline achieved 67.42% hard-goal success, a candidate-set local control achieved 96.53%, and GEC achieved 96.57%. The candidate-set control shows that access to multiple candidate actions explains most of the success gain; relative to that control, GEC preserved success while reducing mean token use from 19,782 to 12,574 (36.4%) and restricted mean tokens to completion at the 40,000-token ceiling from 16,136 to 13,114 (18.7%), while eliminating measured pre-completion drift and sharply reducing gross complexity. Governance-overhead sensitivity remained favorable through an additional 500 synthetic governance tokens per cycle. These mechanistic simulations support explicit governance of scope, evidence, resource use, and stopping, while live-model validation remains necessary.
When Is a Multi-Agent Code Judge Actually Grounded? Two Label-Free Measurements, and a Judge That Declines to Guess