Skip to content
Sprint projectSep 13, 2026Cape Town, South Africa

agent-containment-dead-switch

Jean Naude · Team Containment Dead Switch

Submitted to AI Incident Response Sprint. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.

We present a reference architecture for a fail-closed “dead-switch” that contains an agent under evaluation even when the agent fully compromises its sandbox and the supervisory layer above it.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review this project

Your public critique appears on this page without your name. Your private critique is not published; only the Apart team reads it. If you agree below, we share your review with grantmaking.ai (opens in new tab) and the Transformative AI Fund so strong projects can be funded.

Not shown on this page.

Shown on this page, without your name.

Only the Apart team reads this, and funders if you agree below.

Share my name publicly on grantmaking.ai *
Share my private critique with funders *

How much would this matter for AI safety if it worked? How innovative is it? For scores of 4-5: is this actually new to the field, or replicating recent work?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Negligible. No clear problem addressed, or no meaningful novelty.
  2. 2Limited. Addresses a real problem but with a generic or well-trodden approach. Incremental at best.
  3. 3Moderate. Clear problem with a reasonable approach; some novelty in framing or method beyond routine application of existing tools.
  4. 4Significant. Important problem with an original approach, or identifies a neglected problem area. A valuable contribution others could build on.
  5. 5Exceptional. Tackles a critical AI safety problem with a genuinely novel approach, or opens a new research direction. Clear theory of change. You'd be excited to share this with researchers in the area.

How sound are methodology, implementation, and findings?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Seriously flawed. Methodology broken, results uninterpretable, or implementation doesn't work.
  2. 2Weak. Approach has significant gaps: missing validation, flawed experimental design, or incomplete implementation.
  3. 3Competent. Technically solid given the short duration. Methodology makes sense, results are interpretable, limitations acknowledged, work builds toward clear conclusions.
  4. 4Strong. Thorough methodology with convincing validation. Results clearly support conclusions. Immediately useful for future work.
  5. 5Exceptional. Ambitious scope executed rigorously. Surprising findings, novel methods, or unusually robust validation.

How clearly are work, findings, and impact potential communicated?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Incomprehensible. Cannot determine what the project is actually claiming or doing.
  2. 2Hard to follow. Key information buried, missing, or diluted by excessive length. Significant effort to extract main points.
  3. 3Clear enough. Can understand the problem, approach, and results without undue effort. Core content clearly present: problem, method, findings, limitations.
  4. 4Well presented. Easy to follow, well-structured, appropriate level of detail. Target audience would get it quickly.
  5. 5Exceptionally clear. A pleasure to read. Complex ideas made accessible. Could serve as a model for how to present this type of work.

  1. This is a good containment prototype with thoughtful failure handling and a clear separation between monitoring and shutdown authority. The decision to quarantine the machine when a hardware reset cannot be confirmed, is a particularly good. The conclusion's automatic-shutdown language needs more support/evaluation, since the off-host reset still needs an operator. A table showing what each deployment profile actually guarantees would help follow that distinction. A live run of the updated binaries, with traceable results, would strengthen the work more than additional scope.

  2. I think this project addresses an important problem: emergency shutdown should sit outside the system it''s meant to stop. The paper's approach using permissions that expire unless renewed, combined with an external cutoff, is a plausible way to achieve that, provided that the host remains trusted. I also like the distinction between requesting shutdown and confirming that it happened. However, I found it difficult to reconstruct what actually worked from scattered claims. For example, the live grading system lacks evidence and the external shutdown still needs an operator. The central live shutdown claim also remains only partly demonstrated

    I would prioritize one complete end to end demonstration over adding more components. Run an ecologically valid task, simulate supervisor/monitor evasion or loss of control, and confirm both network cutoff and process termination. This would show whether or not the pieces deliver the claim of protection together. Some claims, like the UK AISI incident description and cloud attestation claim, also need correction. I see a useful prototype here but not yet a demonstrated automatic dead switch.

    Read full reviewShow less

Cite this project

@misc{naude2026agentcontainmentdeadswitch,
  title = {{agent-containment-dead-switch}},
  author = {Jean Naude},
  year = {2026},
  month = sep,
  note = {Submitted to AI Incident Response Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/agentcontainmentdeadswitch-xe7s}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/agentcontainmentdeadswitch-xe7s}
}

Build something like this at the next Sprint

AI Collusion Research Sprint · Oct 23 - 25, 2026