Agents acting on our behalf in the real world (e.g. placing phone calls) must learn online from costly, often irreversible interactions rather than cheap simulator steps. Two things follow. First, deployability depends on the path, not only the outcome. An agent must respect outcome-neutral constraints such as not repeatedly calling an unresponsive user, respecting business hours, or completing required authentication constraints that outcome-based rewards cannot express, since violating them frequently improves apparent success. Second, because each interaction is expensive, the agent must learn efficiently from very few examples. Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) is blind to both challenges: it optimizes solely on the outcome and wastes expensive rollouts on all-fail groups where group-relative advantage collapses to zero. Attempts to densify supervision by rewarding progress target the hard-to-verify direction. In contrast, real agentic environments can cheaply detect bad moves. Since group-relative advantage is equivalent to within-group variance, a dense signal helps only when it supplies variance the outcome lacks. A verifiable penalty on the path meets this condition reliably, while a progress potential helps only where partial progress is reachable. The resulting recipe"penalize the path, reward the outcome"achieves high task success with near-zero violations, where outcome-only training violates constraints on nearly every episode. We provide four design rules for effective penalties, including avoidance of the inaction trap that arises when a penalty is used in isolation.
A personalized agent needs a user memory: a persistent model of who its user is. Today it is almost always text -- transcripts and captions retrieved by similarity. This serves the captionable half of a person ("my cat is named Bibi"), but discards the perceptual half no caption can hold: how a voice sounds, how a face reads across age and lighting, how tired someone sounds. We measure this loss across five modalities: a strong caption-based re-identifier recovers as little as 0.11 of a dedicated encoder's recall, collapsing toward chance on non-nameable signals. We instead ground perceptual memory in the model, decomposing recall into two subproblems: a vision-language model grounds the referent in context (what and where), and a dedicated encoder extracts an identity key (who), stored as one inline token read by attention at generation with no external round-trip. Neither suffices alone -- the VLM identifies cross-age faces at only 0.54 recall where a face encoder reaches 0.81, and an ungrounded encoder recognizes a two-person-scene referent at 0.05 -- yet together they reach correct-region oracle (0.96), generalizing to multi-speaker audio and video. The recognition core is training-free: it reproduces the encoder's recall on any frozen model at O(1) registration cost. On PerceptMem (12 domains, 1,080 tasks) perceptual identity is capacity-limited while exact facts are binding-limited: identity belongs in a parametric bank, facts in a text store. The two memories compose cleanly: an agent with both can remember not only what its user said, but also what they are like.
What a frontier model recalls about a person or tool from its own weights -- before any retrieval step -- often shapes the first description a human sees, making that parametric corpus presence a measurement problem. Citations explain about a third of whether a model recognizes a researcher; we target the residual and build NameRank, a [0,1] recognition score: each of 4,685 entities in 54 cohorts is probed with one open-ended question across 36 models, and an independent judge returns a binary verdict against a curated gold -- did the model state a specific, non-guessable fact about this exact entity? -- so hallucination, context echo, and guesses earn nothing. Synthetic-null entities hold the floor near zero, and verdicts track the entity, not the model. One thesis organizes the findings: recognition is paid to named, indexable artifacts, not to credentials or titles. Every Olympic-style credential sits below a working-researcher baseline, because no named artifact ships with the medal, yet the ranking inverts at the marquee tier, where Nobel, Turing, and Fields laureates saturate the panel. For independent creators the tool out-ranks its maker, and the credential that does propagate is a named method or awarded paper. Being one of many named contributors to a celebrated artifact, by contrast, earns almost nothing -- the authors listed on a flagship model report or system card sit near the recognition floor -- because recognition attaches to the artifact's own distinctive name, not to the roster behind it. No bibliometric predicts recognition well; top-density institutions out-recognize peers at matched citations; and on 258 news events recognition loads on peak salience, not persistence. A self-report probe shows introspection reads a corpus prior, not its own knowledge.