Signed but Not Safe: Requirement Integrity in Multi-Agent LLM Handoffs

Abstract

Enterprise AI agents increasingly split a user's request across subagents and merge their results, and each handoff can summarize away, alter or ignore a requirement. We report a preregistered study with synthetic, exactly scorable tasks comparing free-text, structured JSON and signed requirement-manifest handoffs: the orchestrator extracts each requirement as a verbatim quote plus a checkable predicate, code signs the manifest with HMAC-SHA256, and deterministic code verifies the merger's decision. With Qwen3-8B (1,440 trajectories, five threats), signed manifests cut unsafe commits under attack from 69.4% to 9.0% (60.4 pp, 95% CI [51.4, 69.4]) with no net loss of conformant commits relative to structured handoffs. Signing is what defeats in-transit tampering: an unsigned manifest committed violations in 79% of mutated runs, the signed one in none. On identical trajectories the deterministic verifier caught 78.7% of violating decisions versus 59.0% for an LLM checker, with 7% versus 50% false alarms. An oracle manifest removed all remaining unsafe commits: the residual risk comes from extraction errors made before signing. A preregistered pre-signing injection attack confirmed this boundary: one adversarial line raised signed-manifest violations from 14.6% to 37.5% (Qwen3-8B), 11.1% to 63.9% (gpt-oss-20b) and 8.3% to 75.0% (GPT-5.6-luna), and the signature then authenticated the corrupted manifest. Signing protects requirements in transit, not at extraction; the extraction step is the trust boundary.