Skip to content
Sprint projectOct 26, 2026

Follow the Text: Channel-Agnostic Detection of Inter-Agent Communication via Provenance

Daniel Dahl Juhl · Team Interesting Times

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

Read the report

Report: Follow the Text: Channel-Agnostic Detection of Inter-Agent Communication via Provenance

Code (opens in new tab)
Share

We present a channel-agnostic detector for such communication that does not require identifying communication channels ahead of time. We tag every string read by an agent with its origin, and flag instances that were authored or relayed by other agents. On published logs of a reproduction of the HF incident, 93–99% of the communication edges we detect are independently backed by a prior registry write from the origin agent. In an experimental rig with file-system ground truth, our detector raises one false finding in 20 isolated episodes, finds every flow in the positive control and in authored messages, and 0.91–0.92 of relayed handoffs on Claude Haiku 5.5 and Sonnet 5.5. On refactoring tasks from Refactor Arena it raises 55 false findings per 1,000 inputs. Models briefed on the monitor declined to evade it, but a scripted white-box adversary evades it with four of six strategies, all of which keep the payload from crossing a model boundary as the same text. The backing store for our detector provides scan time linear in text, with no pairwise agent comparisons. We project that it would require 50 bytes per token in a native implementation, making it feasible to use at scale.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review “Follow the Text: Channel-Agnostic Detection of Inter-Agent Communication via Provenance”

Your public critique appears on the project page without your name. Reviews of strong projects are shared with funders, as you choose below.

Not shown on the project page.

Shown on the project page, without your name.

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

Decline to score

Only when the quality of the writing makes the work impossible to follow. Say why in your private critique; the project page shows only that a judge declined, not why.

How much would this matter for the field 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 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.
Sharing your name *

When we share a strong project with funders, your name, scores and public critique go with it, confidentially; this choice is only about whether your name is public. If you think this project deserves funding, please also endorse it: that carries the most weight.

Share my private critique with funders *

See our Privacy Policy.

No public critique yet.

Cite this project

@misc{juhl2026follow,
  title = {{Follow the Text: Channel-Agnostic Detection of Inter-Agent Communication via Provenance}},
  author = {Daniel Dahl Juhl},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  note = {Submitted to AI Collusion Research Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/follow-the-text-channelagnostic-detection-of-interagent-communication-via-provenance-7wld}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/follow-the-text-channelagnostic-detection-of-interagent-communication-via-provenance-7wld}
}