Source-linked AI summary
Constructing Challenging Browser-Use Tasks by Controlled Environment Interventions
Xunjian Yin, Tianchen Guan, Jinao Wang, Weili Cao, Daisy Xinlei Lin, Royce Cheng-Yue, Keagan Long, Kyle Wong, Bhuwan Dhingra, Xiangjun Wang, Shuyan Zhou
TL;DR
Existing browser-use benchmarks add costly new tasks, but changing tasks and environments together makes it hard to tell what makes them harder. BREAKINGWEB instead pairs existing tasks with controlled, recoverable website interventions while holding the instruction and success criterion fixed. Interventions lower the six browser-use agents’ pass rates by 17.9–27.6 percentage points, and most of their failures are belief failures.
Problem
As benchmarks add tasks to keep pace with improving browser-use agents, task and environment changes together make it unclear which change made a task harder.
Source: §1 · p. 1Method
BREAKINGWEB pairs each task on an unmodified website with a reproducible, detectable, recoverable website intervention, labeling the primary behavior needed for recovery.
Source: §1 · p. 2Results
17.9–27.6 percentage points: interventions lower the pass rates of six browser-use agents, and 75% of their failures are belief failures.
Source: §1 · p. 2Takeaways & Limitations
The paired performance gap makes difficulty programmable through environmental changes while preserving what successful task completion means.
Source: §1 · p. 2The evaluation uses browser-use and BrowserGym on seven English consumer websites; extending the catalog to enterprise and non-English settings is future work.
Source: §7 · p. 10
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
As browser-use agents improve, benchmarks keep pace by adding new tasks, websites, and applications. Doing so is costly, and because many factors change at once, it is unclear what makes the new tasks harder. In this work, we instead make existing tasks harder by changing the environment in which they are performed, so that difficulty becomes a programmable property of the environment. We introduce BreakingWeb, in which each task is run twice: once on an unmodified website and once under an intervention, a controlled change to the website's content, server state, network responses, or rendered page. Each intervention is reproducible, keeps the user instruction and success criterion fixed, can be detected and worked around by a competent user, and is labeled with the behavior that recovery from it mainly requires, such as verification. BreakingWeb contains $519$ task pairs on seven self-hosted websites, and each run is scored on the website's final backend state. We evaluate six strong browser-use agents, three agents that observe only screenshots, and human participants. Interventions lower the pass rates of the six browser-use agents by $22.9$ percentage points on average, and each agent fails on nearly half of the tasks it solves on the unmodified website. Humans are affected much less: their pass rate drops by $10.0$ points on the first attempt and by $5.7$ points when they repeat the task. Most failures of the six agents ($75\%$) are \emph{belief failures}, in which the agent declares the run finished although a required change was never made. Our code, data, and environments are available at https://www.breakingweb.app.
1 Introduction
BREAKINGWEB makes existing browser-use tasks harder through controlled, recoverable changes to the website while keeping the instruction and success criterion fixed. The results show that these changes substantially reduce agent pass rates, while affecting humans less.
1 Introduction
- BREAKINGWEB pairs each task on an unmodified website with a recoverable intervention, keeping the user instruction and backend success criterion fixed.The paired performance gap measures robustness to the environmental change.Source: §1 · p. 2
- Interventions can change seeded content, server state, network traffic, or the rendered page, and are labeled by the behavior recovery mainly requires.The seven cognitive primitives are grounding, planning, state tracking, backtracking, patience, exploration, and verification.Source: §1 · p. 2
- The framework includes 519 task pairs across seven self-hosted websites, with runs scored on final backend state.A task passes only when all required changes are made and no protected data is modified.Source: §1 · p. 2
- 17.9–27.6 percentage points: interventions lower the pass rates of six browser-use agents, and 75% of their failures are belief failures.Each agent fails on 39.6–68.0% of tasks it solves in the clean condition; belief failures occur when an agent declares completion despite a missing required change.Source: §1 · p. 2
- 10.0 percentage points on the first attempt and 5.7 points on repeat: interventions reduce human participants’ pass rates by less than agents’ pass rates.The human study covers 140 tasks.Source: §1 · p. 2
2 Benchmark Design
Benchmark Design pairs the same task across clean and intervened environments and scores the resulting backend state against required changes and protected-state invariants. Its catalog organizes realistic, recoverable interventions by injection layer and by the primary behavior needed for recovery.
2.1 Tasks and Paired Interventions
- A task passes when it meets all positive backend-state obligations without violating invariants, regardless of the UI action sequence.Completing only four of five required email updates fails; making all five plus an unrelated change also fails.Source: §2.1 · p. 3
- The paired drop is the score difference between runs with the same instruction, initial state, and success criterion, isolating the intervention’s effect.Grouping variants by their primary primitive shows where the drop is largest.Source: §2.1 · p. 3
2.2 The Intervention Catalog
- Catalog variants must be deterministic, detectable, recoverable, primitive-pure, and realistic, with each having one primary primitive and the task-variant pair involving at most two.These rules make interventions reproducible and workable while keeping grouping by primitive well defined.Source: §2.2 · p. 3
- Interventions act at the seed, server, network, or client layer, placing changes where corresponding real-world failures occur.Examples include seeded phishing content, altered server state, runtime API errors, and browser-side misaligned labels or swallowed clicks.Source: §2.2 · p. 3
2.3 Cognitive Primitives as Intervention Labels
- The seven cognitive primitives are general browser-task abilities used to group interventions by the primary behavior recovery requires, rather than by website.The labels cover reported failure modes while remaining distinct enough to assign each intervention one clear primary primitive, although recovery may involve more than one.Source: §2.3 · p. 4
3 Benchmarking Browser-Use Agents
The evaluation compares clean and intervened runs to measure how controlled website changes affect browser-use agents. Interventions create substantial new failures, with vulnerability varying by primitive and intervention family.
Interventions reduce pass rate across agents
- Agents fail on 39.6–68.0% of tasks they solve cleanly under intervention (49.4% on average), including 41.7% for Gemini-3.1-Pro and 68.0% for GPT-5.4-mini.The paired comparison holds the task constant while changing the environment.Source: §3 · p. 5
The drops differ between primitives
- For five of six text-based agents, the largest mean-score drops occur on backtracking or verification, while exploration and patience have the smallest drops.Exploration still causes 18–62% of cleanly solved tasks to fail under intervention (33.7% on average), despite its small average mean-score drop.Source: §3 · p. 5
GUI-only agents
- GUI-only agents begin 21–51 points below text-based agents using the same models, so their intervention drops are smaller in absolute terms, at most 33.8 points.The drops are measured from a lower baseline.Source: §3 · p. 6
A single intervention family accounts for many failures
- Fabricated success accounts for 504 of 3,114 intervention runs and has a 70% failure rate, the highest among families of similar size.These variants return an apparently successful response without changing server state; recovery requires rereading the relevant state.Source: §3 · p. 6, Figure 4 · p. 6
Open-weight models
- The open-weight models’ intervention pass rates drop by 14.3 points for Kimi-K2.5 and 12.1 points for Qwen3-VL-235B, a qualitative generalization check rather than a capability comparison.Their clean pass rates are lower.Source: §3 · p. 6
4 Analysis
The analysis classifies intervention failures by how agents fail and whether they report completion. Text-based agents most often finish with required changes missing, while GUI-only agents often struggle to operate the interface.
Failure-mode taxonomy
- The taxonomy assigns failed runs to belief, action, or overreach classes; 432 runs labeled abandoned_run are excluded from the 3,037-run analysis.Belief failures end with a completion action despite missing required changes; action failures end without one, while overreach violates a negative check.Source: §4 · pp. 6–7, Table 3 · p. 7
Failure composition
- For every text-based agent, belief failure is the most common class, and misleading_success_taken alone accounts for 34–77% of failures.Two GUI-only agents fail mainly through retry_loop, while v-GPT-5.4 has mostly belief failures (66%).Source: §4 · p. 7, Figure 5 · p. 7
Belief failures dominate
- Belief failures account for 62–83% of failed runs for text-based agents, while action failures account for 33–72% for GUI-only agents and overreach remains below 1%.The proposed remedies differ: reread website state before finishing for text-based agents; improve interface discovery for GUI-only agents.Source: §4 · pp. 7–8
Run length and calibration
- Four of six text-based agents finish 99–100% of intervention runs with a completion action, yet 54–85% of those runs fail.Across the three GUI-only agents, only 38–51% of runs end with completion, and 65–94% of those completion runs fail.Source: §4 · p. 8
A representative trace
- In a representative trace, Gemini-3.1-Pro accepts a forged HTTP 200 response and finishes without checking order status, although the matched clean run passes.The intervention run’s paired drop is 1.0.Source: §4 · p. 8
5 Human Evaluation
Human-140 compares cold and repeated attempts on 140 tasks under clean and intervention conditions. Humans’ pass rates fall less than agents’ under intervention, and the human–agent gap varies by primitive.
Interventions impose a modest cost on humans
- Warm human pass rate falls from 80.7% on clean tasks to 75.0% under intervention (−5.7 points), compared with a 17.9–27.6-point drop for text-based agents.Warm human gains are larger on the second attempt under intervention (+8.6 points) than in the clean condition (+4.3 points).Source: §5 · p. 8
Interventions affect humans much less than agents
- Under intervention, warm humans pass 75.0% of tasks versus 44.5% for Gemini-3.1-Pro, a 30.5-point gap; on completed runs, humans are about five times faster.Median times are 34 seconds for humans and 184 seconds for the agent.Source: §5 · p. 9
Primitive-level comparison
- Text-based agents lose more pass rate than warm humans on all seven primitives, with the largest differences on patience (+52.4 points), verification (+38.3), and backtracking (+33.3).Estimates based on few tasks are uncertain.Source: §5 · p. 9, Figure 6 · p. 9
6 Related Work
Prior benchmarks assess task completion across domains, capability dimensions, or robustness settings. BREAKINGWEB instead changes the website while holding the task instruction and backend success criterion fixed.
Web and computer-use agent benchmarks
- BREAKINGWEB differs from benchmarks that broaden domains or target multimodal grounding by making existing tasks harder through environment interventions and backend-state scoring.The comparison includes WebArena, OSWorld, Mind2Web, and BrowserGym.Source: §6 · p. 9
Capability decomposition and stress-testing benchmarks
- Compared with capability-decomposition and robustness benchmarks, BREAKINGWEB changes only the website and compares each recoverable intervention with the same task on the unmodified site.Interventions act at seed, server, network, or client layers and are labeled with one of seven primitives.Source: §6 · pp. 9–10
Agent harnesses
- BREAKINGWEB evaluates model–harness combinations as complete systems, using both a text-based DOM-serializing harness and a screenshot-only GUI harness.It reports each paired drop by the intervention variant’s primary primitive.Source: §6 · p. 10
7 Conclusion
The conclusion presents BREAKINGWEB as a way to make existing browser tasks harder through recoverable interventions while holding the task and success criterion fixed. The accompanying appendix passages describe its environments, observation and action interfaces, and backend-state scoring.
7 Conclusion
- Text-based agents need to verify website state before declaring completion, while GUI-only agents must first locate actionable page elements; both are less robust than humans.For text-based agents, 54–85% of intervention runs declared finished had failed; the conclusion identifies verification as their bottleneck.Source: §7 · p. 10
A.1 Environment Infrastructure
- BREAKINGWEB serves seven self-hosted website environments through one application, each paired with a typed state model and the endpoints its React interface uses.The environments cover email, finance, e-commerce, social, healthcare, education, and travel.Source: §A.1 · p. 14
A.2 Observation Space
- The two harnesses share the backend, task catalog, and evaluator but differ in what agents observe: text-based agents receive a filtered accessibility tree, while GUI-only agents receive screenshots.The GUI-only harness provides no DOM, accessibility tree, or element list.Source: §A.2 · p. 14, §A.2.1 · p. 14, §A.2.2 · p. 14
A.2.1 Text-Based Harness
- Text-based agents address visible, clickable elements by accessibility-tree bid strings, which fixes their action grammar and rules out selector-hallucination failures by construction.The observation also includes the instruction, last action and error, and current URL.Source: §A.2.1 · p. 14
A.2.2 GUI-Only Harness
- GUI-only agents act on screenshots using coordinates, with pixel or normalized-grid conventions depending on the model provider.Their model receives the instruction and rendered viewport, not the text harness’s action, error, or URL fields.Source: §A.2.2 · pp. 14–15
A.3 Action Space
- The harnesses use separate action grammars—accessibility bids for text-based agents and coordinates for GUI-only agents—and evaluation applies the same 40-action cap to clean and intervention runs.Budget exhaustion does not automatically mean failure; the final backend state is scored.Source: §A.3 · pp. 15–16
B.1 Tasks and Canonical-Diff Scoring
- Tasks specify semantic state changes rather than required UI trajectories, and scoring checks final backend changes against required obligations and protected-state invariants.Set-valued obligations use bipartite matching, allowing any operation order while rejecting missing or duplicate targets; the worked email example shows that completing four of five obligations earns partial credit but fails the clause.Source: §B.1 · pp. 16–17, §B.1.1 · p. 17
B.2 Per-Environment Specifications
- The environments are self-hosted clones spanning seven platforms, and their difficulty taxonomy includes every level in every environment.The seven environments expose typed state models and public routes; each contributes tasks across five difficulty levels.Source: §B.2 · p. 17, §B.3 · p. 17
B.4 Task Generation Pipeline
Tasks are generated deterministically from seeded state and latent targets, then graded by a composable predicate grammar. The passages also describe quality controls, intervention design and mechanics, and the distribution of intervention families.
B.4 Task Generation Pipeline
- Seed generation builds state, interprets ordered task steps, binds latent targets to generated outputs, and uses an integer seed for reproducibility.Binding targets to runtime IDs keeps tasks correct when reseeding changes those IDs.Source: §B.4 · p. 18
B.5 Predicate Grammar
- Canonical-diff predicates form nestable trees, with an allowlisted expression predicate for Python-like checks and data-only forms for the other predicates.The predicate grammar is designed to apply across typed state collections without per-environment customization.Source: §B.5 · pp. 18–19, Table 12 · p. 20
B.6 Task Statistics
- Gmail and Booking tasks are more prose-heavy, while the suite averages 26.4 expected steps and 358 expected seconds per task.These are task-design estimates used during construction, not evaluation run caps.Source: §B.6 · p. 20
B.7 Quality Control and Primitive Purity
- Variants receive a single reviewed target primitive and must remain detectable, recoverable, and realistic; 514 of 519 pairs target a primitive already declared by the base task.The construction log records 48 adjudicated flags (9.2% of variants), measuring review coverage rather than per-primitive agreement. Among 224 variants without scaffolding, verification and backtracking drops are 31.8 and 29.2 points; naturally occurring decoy-only, silent-failure-only, and combined cohorts show drops of 4.8, 51.5, and 57.1 points, respectively, as an additivity diagnostic rather than randomized causal evidence.Source: §B.7 · p. 21
C.1 Design Choices
- The seven primitives are coarse recovery abilities that preserve a single primary label while distinguishing deficits such as verification and backtracking; the injection layers, unlike the primitives, are specific to the web.Transferring the primitive catalog to operating-system or IDE agents would require new layers suited to those environments.Source: §C.1 · p. 22
C.2 Variant Specification Format
- Variants use ordered layer-specific injections, and about 60% use one layer while the rest stack two or three.The illustrated Amazon variant combines near-identical product decoys with ignored add-to-cart requests that require checking the cart.Source: §C.2 · p. 22
C.3 Layer Mechanics
- The seed layer changes initial content, the server layer edits seeded entities, the network layer intercepts requests, and the client layer mutates the rendered interface.Network dispatches include silent failures and misleading successes; client dispatches include decoy elements and swallowed clicks.Source: §C.3 · pp. 22–23
C.4 Family Inventory
- Three families—Decoys & aliases, Fabricated success, and Stale response—account for 566 injection records, more than 60% of the 963 total; three implemented mechanisms have no released variants.The unrepresented families are Split information, Rate limit, and Session expiry.Source: §C.4 · p. 24
C.5 Selected Family Details
The selected family details explain how decoys and fabricated-success responses challenge recovery. The model and budget passages describe the evaluation setup and report a check on action-cap effects.
C.5 Selected Family Details
- Decoys & aliases add near-duplicate entities tied to a target on a salient attribute, requiring agents to inspect a distinguishing attribute before acting.The canonical target remains uniquely identifiable from an attribute the decoys do not match.Source: §C.5 · p. 24
- Fabricated success accounts for 354 of 2,091 failed intervention runs (16.9%) among six text-based agents, with a failure rate of 0.70.The family’s responses can appear successful without mutating server state; the recovery is to reread the relevant state.Source: §C.5 · p. 25
D.1 Models, Snapshots, and Decoding
- The six text-based agents share the same harness and evaluation conditions, and a rerun of failed Opus cap-hit cases with larger budgets leaves the paired gap unchanged.Of 36 rerun cases, 28 still failed; the eight recoveries split evenly between clean and intervention conditions.Source: §D.1 · pp. 25–26
D.2 Additional Agent Evaluations
Additional evaluations test whether the observed intervention effects extend across rollout samples, open-weight models, and analysis slices. The appendix also documents harness differences, failure patterns, and released artifacts.
D.2 Additional Agent Evaluations
- 27.1 ± 1.4 and 27.6 ± 2.5 points are the paired pass-rate drops for Opus-4.7 and Sonnet-4.6 across three rollouts; backtracking and verification rank in the top three in five of six model–rollout cells.Open-weight Kimi-K2.5 and Qwen3-VL-235B also show double-digit drops across score thresholds 0.5–1.0, though their lower clean baselines make this a qualitative generalization test.Source: §D.2 · p. 26
D.3 System Prompts / D.4 Observation Post-Processing
- The text harness prompts agents to verify before declaring completion, while the GUI harness adds a reasoning block and viewport-specific coordinate actions.The text harness flattens the accessibility tree under four filters and adds goal, last-action, error, and URL context; the GUI harness passes an unprocessed viewport screenshot.Source: §D.3 · p. 26, §D.4 · pp. 27–28, Figure 10 · p. 28
D.5 Compute and Cost
- The runtime summary covers 1,038 task-conditions per model, but reports no aggregate USD cost because provider billing data is not redistributed.The runs used CPU-only workers and independent SLURM jobs; reported total wall-clock is an upper bound on cluster time after start-up.Source: Table 21 · p. 28, §D.5 · pp. 28–29
D.6 Released Artifacts
- The public release includes the harness, seven environment SPAs, task and intervention catalogs, evaluator, trajectory extractor, and figure-generation scripts.Viewport screenshots and free-text rubric comments are withheld pending a personal-information audit.Source: §D.6 · p. 29, Table 22 · p. 29
E.1 Full Per-Model and Per-Primitive Breakdown
- Table 23 reports matched clean and intervention pass rates, paired pass-rate changes, and paired mean canonical-diff score changes by model and primitive.The aggregate column covers all 519 paired tasks; primitive columns cover tasks targeting that primitive.Source: §E.1 · p. 29, Table 23 · p. 29
E.2 Failure Modes by Primitive
- 443 of 636 grounding failures and 216 of 289 backtracking failures were classified as misleading_success_taken; retry_loop accounted for 21 of 84 patience failures (25%).Silent_overreach made up the largest shares of state-tracking failures (31%), exploration failures (25%), and verification failures (23%).Source: §E.2 · p. 30, Table 24 · p. 30
E.3 Step Economy on Backtracking Variants
- Failed backtracking runs were 2.4 steps longer on average than passed runs for five of six text-based agents, suggesting agents often tried but failed to recover.The table caption notes GPT-5.4 as the exception, with a fail-minus-pass difference of −0.1 steps.Source: §E.3 · p. 30, Table 25 · p. 30
E.4 Per-Task Human Tax Versus Agent Drop
- Some Human-140 tasks imposed almost no extra warm-human time while causing the six text agents to lose the full score (∆= 1.0).Figure 11 plots warm human log-time ratio against mean agent score drop across 140 paired tasks.Source: §E.4 · p. 30
E.5 Robustness to Coarser Primitive Groupings
Merging seven primitives into five retains the broad vulnerability pattern, but loses distinctions that motivate keeping the finer taxonomy. Intervention pass rates also vary substantially by environment.
E.5 Robustness to Coarser Primitive Groupings
- Recovery had the largest merged-group mean paired score drop (0.286), followed by grounding (0.191), state reasoning (0.178), search/planning (0.100), and temporal robustness (0.085).The seven-way finding that verification and backtracking are consistently weak survives the merge; the authors conclude the main result does not depend on using seven primitives.Source: §E.5 · pp. 31–32, Figure 12 · p. 31
- The five-way merge obscures sizable differences: state tracking versus verification differs by 0.156 score-drop units and 18.3 points, while planning versus exploration differs by 0.139 units and 10.3 points.The authors retain seven primitives to preserve diagnostic resolution, using the five-group view as a robustness check.Source: §E.5 · pp. 31–32, Table 26 · p. 31
F.1 Per-Environment Intervention Pass Rate
- Reddit had the lowest intervention pass rates for every agent (2–11%), whereas LMS, Booking, and Patient Portal were easier for strong models (30–64%).Model rankings were preserved across environments, although overall pass-rate levels varied by environment.Source: §F.1 · p. 32, Figure 13 · p. 32
F.2 Per-Environment Drop by Primitive
The appendix examines how primitive-level deficits and failure modes vary across environments, then gives trajectory case studies and details of the human-study procedures and checks. These analyses show recurring verification weaknesses alongside variation tied to environment and catalog composition.
F.2 Per-Environment Drop by Primitive
- Verification and backtracking deficits occur in every environment with variants targeting them; Reddit’s difficulty centers on grounding, while broader-coverage environments distribute deficits across primitives.Every text-based model has a 10.0–19.0-point drop; backtracking and verification are top-three in 81% of 200 random half-family splits.Source: §F.2 · pp. 32–33
F.3 Per-Environment Failure-Mode Mixture
- The dominant failure mode in most environments is misleading_success_taken, while cross-environment differences likely reflect catalog-layer skews and task-shape differences.The failure-mode table reports percentages of failed intervention runs by environment, summed across six text agents.Source: §F.3 · p. 33, Table 28 · p. 33
G Case Studies
- In both case studies, visible external-state evidence contradicted the agent’s terminal claim, pointing to post-action verification as the shared deficit.The examples feature same-rated product decoys and an explicit pending trade status; selected cases had warm-human ratings of at least 4/5 for clarity, realism, and naturalness.Source: G Case Studies · p. 33, Figure 15 · p. 35, Figure 16 · p. 36
H.1 Human-140 Panel Design
- Human-140 balances 140 tasks across seven environments and five difficulty levels, with four tasks per cell; each task-condition receives cold and immediate warm attempts.The duplicate audit adds 35 task-conditions and 70 attempts to check aggregate warm-reference stability, not primitive-level annotator variance.Source: §H.1 · pp. 34–35, Table 29 · p. 35
H.2 Human Metrics and Agent Comparison
- Warm human trajectories provide an efficiency reference, not proof of optimality; human intervention tax compares median warm times, while agent robustness compares clean and intervention scores.Step-efficiency ratios compare agent steps with cleaned warm-human steps, distinguishing task completion from completion with roughly human-level action counts.Source: §H.2 · pp. 36–37
H.3 Recording Instrument and Trace Cleaning / H.4 Recruitment, IRB, and Compensation / H.5 Post-Task Rating Instrument
- The recorder retains raw and cleaned traces; cleaning compacts keystrokes and scrolls and drops unproductive mouse movements, but preserves retries, verification, waits, backtracking, and failed clicks.Primary and duplicate recordings were collected by eight annotators, with clean and intervention conditions of a task assigned to different annotators; case selection used clarity, realism, and naturalness ratings.Source: §H.3 · p. 37, §H.4 · p. 37, §H.5 · p. 37
H.6 Duplicate-Audit Results / H.7 Annotator Effects
- The duplicate audit estimates aggregate warm-reference stability over 35 duplicated task-conditions; its step ratios use raw event counts because cleaned counts were not recomputed.Per-annotator warm pass rates ranged from 74–86% on clean tasks and 71–80% on intervention tasks, so factor analyses use task-level rather than annotator-level means.Source: §H.6 · p. 37, Table 31 · p. 38, §H.7 · p. 38
H.8 Limitations of the Human Study
The appendix states limits on what the human study can establish and specifies a rule-ordered classifier for failed intervention runs. The classifier includes a fallback for runs that do not match its main modes.
H.8 Limitations of the Human Study
- Four primary annotators support aggregate estimates but are too few for primitive-specific annotator effects; per-primitive human pass rates rely on 7–45 tasks and have wide bootstrap intervals.The duplicate audit covers 35 task-conditions and supports a warm-reference stability check, not primitive-level variance claims.Source: §H.8 · p. 38
- “Cold” means an annotator’s first attempt at a specific task-condition under seed 42, not their first-ever use of the website.Annotators may have used the corresponding production website in their personal lives.Source: §H.8 · p. 38
I Failure-Mode Classifier / I.2 Rules in Evaluation Order
- The classifier assigns failed runs to six mutually exclusive modes or the fallback abandoned_run; 432 fallback runs, about one-third reaching the 40-step limit, are excluded from the six-mode analysis.Rules are deterministic and applied in a fixed order; abandoned_run also covers some runs matching no rule.Source: I Failure-Mode Classifier · p. 39, §I.2 · p. 39, §I.3 · p. 40
I.1 Definitions / I.2 Rules in Evaluation Order / I.3 Worked Examples
- Other rules identify retry loops by five repeated action signatures, plan collapse by a short run without a completion action, and silent overreach by a failed negative invariant without failed positive checks.The rule order matters: misleading_success_taken is checked before premature_done, and non-completion runs are classified before overreach or selector rules.Source: §I.1 · p. 39, §I.3 · pp. 39–40, §I.2 · p. 39
I.1 Definitions / I.3 Worked Examples
- A run is a misleading_success_taken case when it ends with a completion action, fails a positive check, and includes a success keyword in its final thought; without the keyword it is premature_done.The worked example shows an agent claiming an order was placed despite the required cart item being absent.Source: §I.3 · pp. 39–40
I.4 Robustness
Controlled checks test how intervention effects hold up across seeds and mechanisms, finding persistent drops while showing that decoy counts are not a general difficulty scale and combined mechanisms do not reliably interact superadditively.
I.4 Robustness
- The split between misleading-success and premature-done labels is brittle to small wording changes, so only their combined belief-failure count is treated as robust.The separate labels are used only as a qualitative signal.Source: §I.4 · p. 40
J Controlled Checks
- The full benchmark varies tasks, websites, intervention layers, and families together, motivating smaller studies that hold more of the construction fixed.These controlled checks isolate aspects of intervention strength, composition, and seed variation.Source: J Controlled Checks · p. 40
J.1 Intervention Strength
- For all three tested text agents, pass rate decreases monotonically as fabricated-success interventions intercept more initial write requests, from zero to three.This is a dose-response check for a family with a naturally ordered strength parameter.Source: §J.1 · p. 41
- Increasing near-duplicate decoys does not yield a monotonic aggregate curve because it also changes page layout, sorting, and candidate order.The authors therefore do not use decoy count as a general dose-response measure.Source: §J.1 · p. 41
J.2 Composing Two Intervention Mechanisms
- The pooled interaction is +6.1 points in pass rate, with a 95% confidence interval of [−2.2, 14.4], so the study does not show reliable superadditivity.The controlled subset crosses near-duplicate decoys and fabricated-success responses across 60 tasks and three text agents.Source: §J.2 · p. 41
J.3 Seed Replication
- The clean-to-intervention drop is positive in all six model–seed cells and excludes zero in five, persisting across regenerated task entities and initial states.The replication covers 56 tasks, three seeds, two text agents, and 672 episodes.Source: §J.3 · p. 41