Can a search over innate drives find intrinsic rewards that help a reinforcement-learning agent learn, transfer to a task it never saw, and resist an exploit that was absent during the search? Each candidate reward combines four generic events (a new view, a pickup, a drop and a toggle), each with a weight, a relief and a refill rate. We ran three pre-registered stages; the search protocol was locked in a public, timestamped commit before any search result existed. CMA-ES and an equal-budget random search used 1,560 PPO training runs, and the final evaluation and tamper test used 340. On the held-out task, KeyCorridorS3R2, the CMA-ES-selected reward (E) beat task-only PPO, episodic novelty and the random-search-selected reward (R) in all 3 registered comparisons, all of them meaningful by the registered size rule. Among these generic rewards E transferred best; the earlier paper's satiation reward, which on this task is given hand-wired key and locked-door events, did better (20 of 20 seeds solved against 4 of 20; descriptive). On UnlockPickup, where that reward uses generic events, E's mean area exceeded it by 0.276 (descriptive). On the training tasks there was no registered difference between E and R: both E-over-R tests missed. A free reset action, absent during the search, collapsed E's learning on DoorKey-8x8 (mean area 0.829 without it, 0.136 with it; registered) to below task-only PPO (descriptive). The searched drives helped on every task tested, but a reward given task-specific events did better on the held-out task, and selection gave E no protection against an exploit absent from the search.

翻译：暂无翻译