Automated agent design increasingly trusts a single score to decide whether a change is an improvement -- but a score optimized aggressively enough ceases to measure what it was meant to. When an agent also explains its design, that explanation is a second signal we can check without human labels: negate each stated claim, re-run, and observe whether performance drops. We ask whether such a verifier stays reliable once an agent optimizes against it. Our contribution is not a new verifier but a way to stress-test one: a pressure ratio $ρ$ measuring how much the verifier steers the agent's search, and four falsifiable probes covering four failure modes -- giving no signal, being too weak to matter, being gamed by stating fewer claims, and being queried before the agent commits. We apply the test to our own verifier, the Rationale Consistency Score (RCS), inside an LLM agent that designs machine-learning pipelines, with one generator model, six tasks, and three seeds. First, in our prior configuration the verifier barely affects the search objective ($ρ\ll 1$), partly because of an accuracy gate, so its robustness had not been tested; it still shapes the reported artifact through a final-selection tie-break that $ρ$ does not register. Second, a capability control shows the agent shortens its claim lists when instructed, yet search does not, even at $ρ$ over 100 times the prior level; since feedback omits claim volume and horizons are short, this null result is largely structural rather than evidence of robustness. Third, when the agent can probe the verifier before committing, it keeps claims that pass while held-out faithfulness falls -- a decline invisible to in-loop metrics, though partly confounded by how RCS scores small pipelines. We offer these as preliminary evidence and propose a reporting standard: audit a verifier with $ρ$ and these probes before trusting it.

翻译：暂无翻译