An engineering solver can converge even when a language agent has misread the user's problem. AgenticTO makes this distinction inspectable by keeping three records separate: the proposed problem specification, deterministic formulation checks, and numerical acceptance of the solved design. We evaluated the workflow on 50 author-built topology-optimization briefs, injected faults, five numerical problems, and complete agent sessions. The tests used linear-elastic models with one load case. Geometry tools raised the primary provider's correct specifications and refusals from 37 to 44 of 50, while also increasing wrong specifications delivered as finished. Input-format feedback alone recovered most of the accuracy gain. The wrong specifications passed the formulation rules, which also missed most injected faults that changed the intended problem. Clarification corrected the remaining errors when an oracle supplied reference facts, but also prompted questions on fully specified briefs. Perfect accuracy under that oracle therefore does not establish performance with engineers. Numerical trials reached 73.7 million elements, although released designs used finer grids than requested. The records expose how a proposed problem becomes an accepted numerical result; agreement with the brief still needs a separate judgment.

翻译：暂无翻译