Agent evaluations commonly score the state observed when a run stops and count the run as one trial. Interpreting that score as a final result from a separate trial requires outcome finality and cross-unit separation. Outcome finality requires that later events cannot change the claimed result, while cross-unit separation requires that earlier runs cannot change the relevant conditions of later ones. The endpoint establishes neither condition by itself, and the two can hold independently. Waiting for a delayed outcome may settle the label even though its state remains available to another run. Isolation may prevent carryover even though the scored outcome remains unresolved. We develop a completion argument that identifies the evidence needed for each decision. A final success or failure label is justified only when every relevant effect is resolved or bounded tightly enough to fix the outcome. Any remaining uncertainty must be reported. First, in a controlled replay with fixed agent actions, we find that endpoint and terminal labels differ for every nonzero-delay operation and that a delayed write changes the next run's score under shared state but has no such effect after namespacing or verified reset. Second, in a review of ten public protocols, we find that reset or deliberate retention is documented explicitly more often than unfinished operations or evidence for separate scoring. Finally, we propose an open-effects record for operations and resources that may remain relevant after the endpoint, their status, and their possible effects on the scored outcome or another run.

翻译：暂无翻译