Abstract
A typed decision model reads a piece of text and returns a probability over caller-defined options, each with a short written definition, generating no text. Recent work places these models in agent systems as guardrails: the component that reads a proposed tool call or incoming message and decides whether to allow it. We evaluate seven open-weight models in that role and report the two error directions separately: a fail-open error allows a prohibited action and is a vulnerability; a fail-closed error blocks a permitted one and is only a cost. On prompt-injection, jailbreak and toxic-content screening, accuracy at the allow-or-block decision ranges from 36% to 72% against a chance level of 50%. A low error rate in one direction only reflects which answer a model defaults to: one allows nearly everything, another blocks nearly everything. On a synthetic suite of agent tool calls, six lines of server log text that say nothing about the policy raise a gate's fail-open rate from 0% to 63% on a policy it otherwise decides correctly. Giving the permissive option a misleading name, with its definition and the judged text untouched, raises that rate to between 93% and 100% on the four models that place the label in their input. Every defense we tested is defeated, either by an attacker who targets its mechanism or by attacker-controlled text. Escalating the least confident decisions does not help either: a decision an attack has reversed is no less confident than the one it replaced. Parsing each policy field into a typed value does eliminate one attack, but it also makes the model unnecessary: a deterministic rule over those values reaches 100% accuracy on all six policies. These models can reduce how many cases reach a reviewer, but on this evidence they should not be the component that decides. Code is available at this https URL.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.12292
