<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-10-26T11:03:18Z</responseDate>
  <request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:lifeofresearch.com:140" metadataPrefix="oai_dc">https://lifeofresearch.com/oai2</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <record>
      <header>
        <identifier>oai:lifeofresearch.com:140</identifier>
        <datestamp>2026-10-26T08:13:34Z</datestamp>
        <setSpec>type:preprint</setSpec>
        <setSpec>openaire</setSpec>
      </header>
      <metadata>
        <oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
        <dc:title>PECA v3: Evidence-Gated Anticipatory Execution: Separating Requirement Compliance, Predictive Utility, and Commit Authorization in AI Agents</dc:title>
        <dc:creator>RM369</dc:creator>
        <dc:subject>AI agents</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>instruction following</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>speculative execution</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>runtime verification</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>auditability</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>action contracts</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>reversibility</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>reward hacking</dc:subject>
        <dc:description>Anticipation can help an AI agent prepare useful work before a requirement is fully specified, but a predictor can also create the very obligations the agent then tries to satisfy. PECA v3 refactors Prefix-Conditioned Execution and Cumulative Audit around a strict separation among confirmed requirements, provisional predictions, and the mutable artifact with its provenance. The controller preserves the state triple (R_h,R_p,S), but makes the distinction operational: compliance is judged only against active, evidence-supported requirements in R_h; predictions in R_p are evaluated separately for utility, calibration, and waste; and external or consequential changes pass through action-specific authorization and commit gates. Each action carries a contract covering evidence, preconditions, expected effects, verification, side effects, reversibility, and commit criteria. The design favors preparation useful across several plausible futures, permits isolated branch-specific speculation only when its expected value is positive, and combines material-cycle checkpoints with event-triggered reviews. The nested 3-6-9 cadence is retained as an ablatable scheduling hypothesis, not a source of correctness. This paper defines the architecture and a controlled evaluation plan. It reports no live-model performance results and makes no claim that the proposed controller is superior until matched, independently evaluated experiments establish that fact.</dc:description>
        <dc:publisher>Life of Research</dc:publisher>
        <dc:date>2026-10-26</dc:date>
        <dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/preprint</dc:type>
        <dc:identifier>https://lifeofresearch.com/preprints/140</dc:identifier>
        <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
        <dc:relation>https://lifeofresearch.com/preprints/140/files/148/PECA_v3_Evidence_Gated_Anticipatory_Execution.pdf</dc:relation>
        <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
        <dc:rights>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</dc:rights>
        <dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights>
        </oai_dc:dc>
      </metadata>
    </record>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>