Evidence · DiggingBeagle record
Built to Remember, Shipped to Forget: Containerized Agent Deployments
Audit of 433 agent projects, applicability-tested state durability contracts, and 16 fault-injection predictions. The study reports 99/265 process-restart losses, 110/265 replacement losses and only partial developer repair success.
- Source role
- primary disclosure
Evidence record
Audit of 433 agent projects, applicability-tested state durability contracts, and 16 fault-injection predictions. The study reports 99/265 process-restart losses, 110/265 replacement losses and only partial developer repair success.
Claim-level citations (3)
- supportsAgent container restarts could silently erase conversation state and pending approvals: Among 265 examined systems requiring process-independent state, 99 (37.4%) lost relevant state under restart conditions.
Section IV, OC1 durability table
- supportsAgent container restarts could silently erase conversation state and pending approvals: The authors report 41.5% relevant losses under container replacement and reproduced 14 of 16 predicted violations with fault tests.
Abstract; Section IV and V fault-injection results
- supportsAgent container restarts could silently erase conversation state and pending approvals: The study reports that 78% of observed developer repairs modified application code, while only about two thirds fully restored the relevant operational contract.
Section VI developer repair taxonomy and Abstract