Assess whether the safety–value cost asymmetry generalizes to other verification schemes

Determine whether verification schemes other than CIVeX exhibit the same separation between the cost of preventing wrongful action and the cost of recovering beneficial actions lost through graph misspecification.

Background

The paper demonstrates on CIVeX and the Causal-ToolBench benchmark that attesting executions can eliminate false executions at relatively low cost, whereas recovering beneficial actions rejected because of a misspecified graph requires auditing rejections and substantially greater experimental expenditure.

Because the experiments evaluate one verifier and one synthetic benchmark, it remains unresolved whether this split between the cost of safety and the cost of value is a general property of causal action verification or a system-specific result.