Skip to content

SAGE: Safety-First Defense-in-Depth Guardrails for Verified Lifecycle Control of High-Impact Generative AI

Jul 2026 · arXiv.org · Vol abs/2607.22926 · 0 citations · 31 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

SAGE is a safety-first, authorization-separated architecture in which credible catastrophic-enablement risk constrains admissibility before utility, latency, or commercial objectives are considered, and formal results establish safety priority, conservative detector bounds, monotone release gating, tamper-evident records, and an authorization cut.

Abstract

High-impact generative AI makes catastrophic misuse a lifecycle-control problem, not merely a prompt-filtering problem. SAGE is a safety-first, authorization-separated architecture in which credible catastrophic-enablement risk constrains admissibility before utility, latency, or commercial objectives are considered. It combines signed release manifests, diverse detectors, robust risk envelopes, least-risk defaults, output checking, three-valued monitoring, protected audit chains, containment, and rollback. Formal results establish safety priority, conservative detector bounds, monotone release gating, tamper-evident records, and an authorization cut; two PRISM abstractions verify authorization separation and lifecycle invariants under explicit assumptions. A frozen, vendor-symmetric study sent 84 cases to each of four GPT, four Claude, and two Gemini snapshots: 840 calls yielded 794 target responses, 46 provider errors, and 449 successful judgments covering 375 responses. Eight snapshots had complete judged domain coverage. Harmful-compliance estimates were low; variation arose mainly from benign utility and safe redirection. Seven multiplicity-adjusted contrasts involving Claude, Gemini, or GPT-5 snapshots and the GPT-5 mini and GPT-5 nano snapshots were supported, while no tested contrast between the Claude or Gemini snapshots and GPT-5 or GPT-5.5 survived correction. The observed harmful-compliance range is a conservative, protocol-bound view from one generation per prompt with no tools, retrieval, history, or human adjudication; it is not an upper bound on operational assistance. A preregistered extension specifies how to test a wider best-worst gap using a locked split, repeated sampling, multi-turn and sandboxed-tool conditions, and domain-expert scoring.

View source

Similar papers

Open access Sep 2026

RACER: Remediation Assurance Contracts for Evidence-Gated, Risk-Bounded Autonomous Recovery in Cloud Systems

RACER, a runtime-assurance mechanism that treats every AI-generated repair as an untrusted proposal until it is bound to a machine-checkable Remediation Assurance Contract, is presented.

Prudvi Saisaran Ponduru, Pavani Priya Vyshnavi Nandanavanam, Sai Kesav Kumar Ponduru · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

Defensive Reverse Engineering of LLM Applications: A Black-Box Framework for Security Risk Scoring and Mitigation

D-RELLM is presented, a defensive reverse-engineering framework for black-box security assessment of deployed LLM applications that treats the deployed application as a socio-technical system whose risk depends on instruction hierarchy, retrieval trust, authorization, tool agency, output handling, monitoring, and opera...

Bhavesh B. Prajapati, Bhavya Shah · 0 citations
Preprint Jul 2026

ContainmentBench: Trace-Based Evaluation of Post-Exposure Containment in Tool-Using LLM Agents

ContainmentBench, a sandboxed benchmark comprising a 504-scenario specification dataset, a shared rollout-trace schema, and stage-scoped metrics for endpoint violations, logged propagation, and explicitly authorized taint-exposed proposals that commit, is introduced.

Wen-Hao Lan, Shan Li, Meiqi Wu et al. · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

RunbookFX: Type- and Effect-Safe LLM Synthesis for Executable Incident Diagnosis and Mitigation

RunbookFX is presented, a typed functional domain-specific language that elevates incident response from natural-language suggestions to executable programs whose safety is established statically, and key insight is that incident-response safety decomposes into three interacting dimensions: risk severity, exercised cap...

Yi-Fan Xiao, Shi-Jie Li, Yu-Hao Ge · 0 citations
Conference Aug 2026

A Systematic Survey of Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses in LLM-Integrated Applications and Agentic Systems

Prompt injection (PI), listed as LLM01:2025 by OWASP, converts a data-representation problem into an execution-control problem: untrusted content is processed alongside privileged instructions, while large language models lack a native instruction/data boundary. Unlike jailbreaking, which primarily targets content-safe...

Xin Cao, Yi-Ping Bao · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.