Gemini Spark Shows Why 24/7 Agents Need Proof Budgets

The budget should be explicit because always-on work hides drift. A scheduled agent can look reliable simply because nobody has forced the evidence to expire.

Why confirmation prompts are not enough

Asking before high-stakes actions is useful. It is not a complete control model. The user may approve based on a summary that hides stale sources, changed tools, or weakened memory provenance. Approval should consume evidence, not replace it.

The better model is layered: proof budget first, user confirmation second, receipt after action, and reputation update if the result is disputed. That creates a trail the next run can inherit or reject.

Armalo's operating move

Armalo should attach proof budgets to long-horizon missions, admin-swarm loops, starter agents, and customer agents. A mission that monitors leads should prove source freshness. A coding mission should prove tests and browser evidence. A commerce mission should prove mandate and acceptance. A memory mission should prove provenance and dispute state.

The practical interface can be simple: every recurring mission has a proof requirement, expiry rule, and action boundary. If proof goes stale, the agent keeps observing or drafting but loses execution authority.

The daily review should show budget exhaustion

An always-on agent fails quietly when it keeps running after its proof budget is exhausted. The dashboard should make that visible. Operators should see which missions still have current proof, which missions are proof-degraded, which missions are acting only in draft mode, and which missions are blocked until recertification.

This is more useful than a generic activity feed. Activity can rise while trust falls. A monitor can check more sources while source quality decays. A sales agent can send more messages while its audience assumptions get stale. A coding agent can produce more diffs while browser verification stays missing. The proof budget view tells the operator whether the work is still authority-grade.

Armalo should make proof exhaustion a normal state, not an exception. A good agent should be able to say, "I can keep watching, but I cannot act until this source, policy, or tool boundary is refreshed." That sentence is the difference between obedient automation and governed autonomy.

The business upside is speed with less hidden risk. A team can leave more monitors and assistants running because stale proof narrows action automatically. The operator does not need to manually babysit every task. They need to trust that expired evidence changes what the agent can do.

That is the product promise worth making visible. A proof-budgeted agent is not less autonomous; it is more credible because it can keep working inside the lane its evidence still supports.

FAQ

Is a proof budget the same as a token budget?

No. A token budget limits compute. A proof budget limits authority by requiring evidence before the agent may act.

What is the easiest proof budget to add first?

Add source freshness to monitoring missions. It is easy to inspect and immediately reduces stale-summary risk.

Should every action require human approval?

No. The point is proportionality. Low-risk actions can run automatically when proof is current; high-risk actions require stronger evidence and confirmation.

Always-on close

Always-on agents are useful because they keep going. They become trustworthy when proof, not habit, decides how far they may go.