Skip to content
Octopus Research Institute
TR-2026-0051Technical reportPeer review: Not peer reviewedEvidence: ExperimentalStatus: Released

Governed multi-sub-agent orchestration: plan, route, execute, verify, merge, audit, recover — with per-sub-agent isolation

Ran Tao (Octoryn Research)

This is not peer-reviewed. Treat it as a working document, not a validated result.

Abstract

A governed runtime decomposes one request into a DAG of isolated, audited sub-agent ReAct loops, each with its own identity, isolated memory, allowed-tool limit, and audit chain. A bounded-concurrency scheduler runs independent tasks in parallel and merges them via a deterministic reducer with per-task audit references; partial failure gives a structured result, not a silent success. Each tool call passes a governor and commit gate; an injected side-effect is denied with no bypass on a real model. Verified with negative controls and a capstone. Deterministic planner; serialized decode.

1. Contribution

Claimed. A single high-level request is decomposed into a DAG of governed sub-agent tasks. Each task runs as a full governed ReAct loop with its own identity (sub-agent id / task id / parent run id / tenant id), an isolated memory namespace, an allowed-tool restriction, and its own audit chain. A bounded-concurrency wave scheduler plans and dispatches tasks (parallel where independent), enforces a per-task timeout, retries only idempotent tasks, and merges results through a deterministic reducer that carries per-subtask audit references. On any sub-agent failure the orchestrator returns a structured partial result (all-OK flag plus failed-task ids), never a silent success. Every tool call still passes through a tool governor and a commit gate; an injected side-effect inside a sub-agent is denied and no sub-agent leaks into another. Verified at the contract level by model-free tests (each with a negative control) and by a real-model capstone on a quantized 30B-A3B-class model.

NOT claimed. This is multi-sub-agent orchestration, not multi-LLM autonomy: the planner is a deterministic clause splitter (v1), not an LLM. Parallelism is proven at the contract level (mock tests with overlap evidence); real-model concurrency is concurrent submission with serialized decode — no parallel-decode speedup and no throughput number is claimed. Scale (many agents), real business connectors, and production hardening are out of scope and not demonstrated.

2. Methods

ItemValue
Engine / targetA single-box governed agent runtime (with a companion CLI), on an Apple Silicon class engine
New codeA task-graph type, an orchestrator, a CLI orchestrate subcommand, a contract-test suite, and a capstone regression script (roughly one thousand lines total)
PlannerA deterministic, model-free composite planner (clause splitter on commas / "then" / ";") behind a planner protocol; a mock planner is used for tests
SchedulerA wave scheduler using a structured task group with the in-flight bound set to the configured max concurrency; per-task timeout; idempotent-only retry
IsolationA per-(tenant, task) memory-provider namespace; a per-sub-agent tool governor on the agent-runner dispatch seam
AuditA distinct audit reference per sub-agent, derived as a content hash of the trail; a deterministic reducer merges results, and the final answer carries every task id plus audit reference
Model (capstone)A quantized 30B-A3B-class model, served by a real daemon
HardwareNot recorded in source (single-box; Apple Silicon class implied by the engine)
Build / oracle / precisionNot recorded in source beyond the quantization of the capstone model

The contract-level tests are model-free and falsify-first: a RED state was captured first (the four core types did not exist, so the test target failed to compile, demonstrating the capability was absent), then GREEN.

3. Results

  • Contract-level tests: 6/6 GREEN, model-free, each with a negative control: split into three or more sub-agent tasks; parallel-overlap (independent tasks run in parallel; the negative control with max concurrency of 1 serializes); tool calls remain governed (a demo email side-effect denied, no bypass); sub-agent isolation (negative control: an explicit dependency does pass data); partial failure yields a structured result; reducer merges results with audit references. The full agent test suite passes with no regression.
  • Real-model capstone: 7/7 (a one-command real-model capstone against a quantized 30B-A3B-class model): one composite request decomposed into four governed sub-agents — a read-only calculator (ran), a memory write (ran), a demo email side-effect (attempted by the real model, DENIED by the governor, no bypass), and a fan-in summarize that depends on the prior three (ran a recall). Distinct audit references per sub-agent; the reducer's final answer carries every task id plus audit reference.
  • Concurrency mitigation (capstone). Running the daemon in a request-granular serialized-decode mode ran max concurrency of 3 at 9/9 with the daemon surviving and a maximum observed concurrency of 3. This is concurrent submission with serialized decode — no parallel-decode speedup. All numbers are from a single recorded run; no variance or repetition is stated in the source.

4. Ablations / negative controls

  • Parallel-overlap negative control: max concurrency of 1 serializes the independent-task test — confirms the overlap observed at higher concurrency is real, not incidental.
  • Isolation negative control: an explicit dependency does pass data between sub-agents — confirms the isolation is enforced by the absence of a declared edge, not by an inability to communicate.
  • Governance: the demo email side-effect is denied both in the model-free test (no bypass) and when attempted by the real model in the capstone — confirms the governor holds across the sub-agent dispatch seam.

5. Threats to validity / limitations

  • Planner is deterministic (model-free) v1, not an LLM planner. It splits requests on commas / "then" / ";". Nuanced decomposition is future work; an LLM planner would drop in via the same planner protocol. The sub-agents themselves use the real model.
  • Real-model concurrency is SAFE-but-SERIALIZED. The engine's default batched-decode path is not safe under the agent concurrency pattern: its decode paths assume a single in-flight decode and share per-stream state, so concurrent decode is unsafe in the current build. The shipped mitigation serializes decode at request granularity. There is no parallel real-model decode and the batched-throughput advantage is off in this mode. True parallel decode would require per-stream state isolation in the engine or data-parallel scale-out.
  • Bounded concurrency is a capability, not a benchmark. Max concurrency bounds in-flight sub-agents; "many agents" is not load- or scale-tested. No throughput numbers are claimed.
  • Single recorded run. Capstone and concurrency numbers are from one run each; no variance, repetition, or independent reproduction is stated in the source. Evidence level is experimental.
  • No real enterprise connector. The email side-effect is a denied demo tool (off by default). Real connectors are out of scope and not yet implemented.
  • Per-sub-agent memory is per-run ephemeral (isolated by task id; not promoted to durable tenant memory). Cross-run sub-agent memory is future work.
  • Inherits the daemon's non-production posture (no transport security / high availability; rate-limit default-off).
  • Hardware, build flags, oracle, and precision details beyond the quantized capstone model are not recorded in source.

6. Reproducibility

  • Repro command: a one-command real-model capstone script (against a quantized 30B-A3B-class model served by a real daemon).
  • Contract tests: a model-free contract-test suite (6/6, runnable without a model).
  • Daemon configuration for the concurrency mitigation: start the daemon in the request-granular serialized-decode mode.
  • Companion docs: internal design notes on the orchestration runtime, the concurrent-decode investigation, and a capability-delta reality check.
  • Env / hardware: single box; specific hardware, OS, and build flags are not recorded in source.

Claim boundary

The author's explicit scope — what this work does and does not establish — carried over from the Octoryn Research publishing model.

Proves

  • One request decomposes into multiple governed, isolated, audited sub-agent executions, each with its own identity and allowed-tool set.
  • Every sub-agent tool call stays under the tool governor and commit gate; an injected side-effect is denied with no bypass on a real quantized large model.
  • The reducer merges sub-agent results with verifiable per-task audit references; partial failure yields a structured result, not a silent success.
  • Parallel scheduling is verified at the contract level with model-free tests carrying negative controls, plus a real-model capstone.

Does not prove

  • Real-model parallel decode: concurrency is serialized decode; no parallel-decode speedup or throughput number is claimed.
  • Scale to many agents: bounded concurrency is a capability, not load- or scale-tested.
  • An LLM planner: the v1 planner is a deterministic clause splitter.
  • Any real business workflow or production hardening; results are a single recorded run, not independently reproduced.

Applies when

  • A single-box governed agent run decomposes one request into independent sub-agent tasks.
  • Tool calls must remain governed and auditable per sub-agent, with structured partial-failure recovery.

Does not apply when

  • Parallel real-model decode speedup is required (needs per-stream state isolation in the engine, or data-parallel scale-out).
  • An LLM planner, real enterprise connectors, durable cross-run sub-agent memory, or production hardening such as transport security and high availability are needed.

Authors

  • Ran Tao — Investigation, Writing

Cite this

Citation

Tao, R., Octoryn Research. (2026). Governed multi-sub-agent orchestration: plan, route, execute, verify, merge, audit, recover — with per-sub-agent isolation (TR-2026-0051). Octopus Research Institute.

BibTeX

@techreport{oritr20260051,
  title       = {Governed multi-sub-agent orchestration: plan, route, execute, verify, merge, audit, recover — with per-sub-agent isolation},
  author      = {Tao, Ran and {Octoryn Research}},
  institution = {Octopus Research Institute},
  year        = {2026},
  note        = {Permanent ID TR-2026-0051. Not peer reviewed.}
}

Disclosures

Funding
Hardware and infrastructure provided by Octoryn / Octopus Core Pty Ltd.
Conflicts of interest
Octoryn ships commercial inference and governance tooling; findings are reported independently.