Fault injection is increasingly used to evaluate the reliability of tool-using LLM agents. However, there has been limited study of how fault-adoption results should be interpreted when the agent itself determines which authoritative observations become visible during execution. In this paper, we present a systematic study of this evidential validity problem in agent fault-injection evaluation. We develop a measurement protocol that specifies what observations can refute an injected assertion, determines whether they can become visible before the affected fact is first used, and records whether the evaluated execution actually realizes this condition. We construct SSCBench as an instantiation of the protocol and evaluate four fault operators and five agent configurations over 1,191 faulted executions in two $τ$-bench environments. Our experiments show that an admitted fault case and agent configuration can realize substantially different evidential conditions across executions, and that aggregate adoption can remain well defined even when the population supporting a timely-counterevidence claim is sparse or absent. For example, among 44 adopted runs in which counterevidence eventually became visible, only 17 received it before first use, while 27 received it afterward. We also find that first-error timing and later stance revision need not coincide, and that automated trajectory analysis can recover adoption without reliably recovering the first faulty-reliance event needed for temporal diagnosis. We argue that the evidential condition realized by an execution and the population supporting a claim-specific interpretation are part of fault-injection evaluation itself and should be reported before adoption is interpreted as failure under pre-use counterevidence.

翻译：暂无翻译