Safety evaluations of multi-agent LLM systems often compare a direct prompt with a planner-executor pipeline and report the difference as a single "pipeline effect." We argue that this aggregate is difficult to interpret because it conflates three mechanisms: harmful intent may be reframed as plausible operational work, the planner may refuse or transform the request, and the executor may act under delegation prompts implying prior approval. To separate these factors, we introduce a five-condition controlled contrast design, evaluated on 30 synthetic harmful scenarios and an exploratory external validation set from four agent-safety benchmarks using LLM-judged compliance. Our results show that aggregate pipeline safety is not a stable architectural property. Operational reframing is the most portable risk signal, increasing compliance for GPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek across both scenario sets, while Claude is comparatively resistant. Planner behavior can offset this risk mainly through refusal; however, when the planner produces executable steps, the executor may become more compliant than under the direct operational baseline. Approval-framed delegation is sensitive to prompt design, model pairing, and scenario source, and a skeptical executor prompt sharply reduces compliance. Raw-direct model rankings can also mispredict deployed planner-executor behavior. Gemini is safest under raw direct prompts in the primary set yet shows the largest amplification with a Claude planner, rising from 8.9 percent to 38.9 percent compliance. GPTs near-zero aggregate pipeline effect instead hides a reframing increase canceled by planner refusal. These findings suggest that multi-agent safety evaluations should report reframing, planner behavior, delegation framing, and model pairing separately before attributing failures to architecture itself.

翻译：暂无翻译