Project summary

Current AI safety evaluation often identifies failures only after final behavior is visible, without clearly localizing where failure entered the decision chain, whether provenance broke, or whether approval gates were bypassed.
This project builds an open, deterministic oversight layer for agent traces by combining a structural trace protocol (LTP) with a causal memory graph (CML).

Within 90 days, I will release three public goods:

1. LTP-Bench v0.1: an adversarial trace benchmark with labeled safety-relevant failures,

2. LTP + CML reference library: open tooling for deterministic trace recording, replay, and structural analysis,

3. Evaluation report: a direct comparison of structural trace analysis vs behavioral-only safety evaluation baselines.

Core question: When does structural trace analysis materially outperform behavioral-only sampling for safety triage and failure localization?
Even if results are mixed, the benchmark, code, and negative-result analysis remain reusable public infrastructure.

Goals

• Build and validate a deterministic oversight layer (LTP + CML) that flags safety-relevant failures inside agent traces across architectures.

• Release LTP-Bench v0.1 as a reusable public benchmark corpus.

• Produce a clear empirical answer on where structural trace signals outperform behavioral-only evaluation.

What will ship

1) LTP-Bench v0.1

• Adversarial traces across coding, tool-use, and research-assistant settings.

• Labeled failure classes: hallucination, provenance violations, approval bypass, dangerous tool use, semantic drift, specification violations/deception.

• Dataset card and labeling rubric.

2) LTP + CML reference library

• Deterministic trace schema, recorder/replayer, structural checks.

• Causal memory graph for cross-turn dependency tracking.

• Integration examples and documentation.

3) Public evaluation write-up

• Metrics, baselines, ablations, limitations, and reproducibility instructions.

• Explicit statement of where the method works and where it does not.

Method + evaluation design

I will compare three conditions:

1. Behavioral-only baseline (output sampling/scoring without structural trace checks)

2. LTP-only structural checks (without CML)

3. Full method: LTP + CML

Primary metrics:

• Precision / recall / F1 by failure class

• False-positive rate of structural flags

• Time-to-localization of failure origin

• Cross-framework transfer robustness

• Inter-annotator agreement on labeled subsets

Secondary metrics:

• Failure-class coverage

• Stability under task/prompt perturbations

• Cost per evaluated trace (compute + analyst effort proxy)

All metrics, labeling rubrics, and evaluation scripts will be published with reproducibility instructions to support independent replication.

90-day execution plan with milestone gates

Days 1-30: Foundation + first integration

• Finalize trace schema and failure taxonomy

• Integrate one agent framework with deterministic replay

• Define baseline protocol and scoring scripts

Exit criteria:

• End-to-end replay on fixture set

• Draft taxonomy + labeling rubric

• First baseline run completed

Days 31-60: CML + corpus v0

• Implement CML graph logic and cross-turn checks

• Build initial adversarial corpus and complete first labeling pass

• Run first LTP-vs-behavioral comparisons

Exit criteria:

• Labeled corpus reaches minimum viable size

• Comparable metrics pipeline working end-to-end

• Preliminary result tables produced

Days 61-90: Expansion + release

• Expand benchmark coverage

• Harden library interfaces and docs

• Publish code, benchmark, and final comparative report

Exit criteria:

• Public LTP-Bench v0.1 release

• Reproducible evaluation package

• Final report with limitations and negative-result analysis

Minimum vs full scope

Minimum funding ($10,000)

I will deliver:

• 1 framework integration

• A smaller labeled adversarial corpus

• An initial oversight library prototype

• An initial comparative public report

Full funding ($20,000)

I will deliver:

• At least 3 framework/architecture integrations

• A substantially expanded adversarial corpus

• A more polished library and documentation

• A stronger comparative evaluation (including transfer + ablations)

Budget

• $12,000 — stipend (3 months full-time execution)
  Implementation, benchmarking, release engineering, documentation.

• $5,000 — compute
  LLM API/GPU usage for repeated adversarial evaluations and comparisons.

• $3,000 — infrastructure + validation
  Storage, annotation tooling, limited contractor support for labeling/validation, release polish.

This is a lean bridge budget focused on shipping reusable public artifacts.

Risks and what happens if the project fails

Most likely risks:

• Structural signals do not broadly outperform behavioral-only methods.

• CML gains are narrow (task-dependent).

• Integration complexity reduces architecture coverage.

Mitigation and value even under partial failure:

• Publish class-specific results and clear boundary conditions.

• Release benchmark, labels, code, and a negative-result protocol.

• Provide reusable public testbeds so others can iterate faster and avoid dead ends.

Team and fit

I am a solo independent researcher with 12+ years in fintech QA/testing infrastructure and failure analysis, now focused on AI safety oversight and reproducible evaluation.

Relevant prior open-source work:

• Causal-Memory-Layer — causal memory and accountability layer

• L-THREAD-Liminal-Thread-Secure-Protocol-LTP- — deterministic replay protocol for trace continuity

• CaPU — permission-first cause→commit→execute pipeline

• DMP-decision-memory-protocol — decision-memory protocol for context, risk, and outcomes

My comparative advantage is execution: converting broad safety concerns into testable artifacts, reproducible fixtures, and practical open-source tooling.

Funding history (last 12 months)

I currently have related applications under evaluation (including LTFF, Open Philanthropy/Coefficient-affiliated pathways, and NLNet), but no confirmed grant payout yet.
This Manifund grant would provide the bridge needed to convert promising prototypes into public, reusable safety infrastructure.

Ask

I am requesting $20,000 to deliver, within 90 days, three public goods: LTP-Bench v0.1, an open LTP+CML oversight library, and a reproducible comparative evaluation against behavioral-only baselines.

At the $10,000 minimum, I commit to a meaningful first release: one framework integration, an initial labeled adversarial corpus, a working prototype library, and an initial public report.

Single consolidated update (for comments)

Update: I currently have related applications under evaluation (LTFF, Open Philanthropy/Coefficient-affiliated pathways, NLNet) and am clarifying fiscal sponsorship for an external SFF application. Immediate execution focus is shipping LTP-Bench v0.1, one production-grade LTP+CML integration, and a reproducible evaluation package within the 90-day plan.