Comment on: Safety policy for constraining meta-agent modifications

Good observation on cumulative drift. Static per-action policies catch individual violations but miss trajectory-level shifts — the "boiling frog" problem is real for optimization loops. A couple of thoughts on how this could layer in: Receipt chains already give you the raw material. Every iteration produces signed receipts with tool call distributions, write targets, and decision outcomes. A drift detector could consume that chain and compute the fingerprint you're describing without needing hooks inside the meta-agent itself — it stays external and tamper-resistant. Threshold-based halts map cleanly to the approval gate. When drift exceeds the threshold, rather than raising an exception inside the agent, the policy could escalate to the existing human approval gate. Same mechanism, different trigger. The W3C reference is interesting — separating behavioral consistency (Layer 3) from authorization (Layer 1-2) aligns with how we think about progressive enforcement (shadow → simula...