Computer-use routes need trajectory gates

An abstract browser workbench with a semantic route, a fallback lens, and small inspection lights, without text or logos. — Clicking is an outcome. The route to the click is the evidence.

A computer-use agent can look impressive when it clicks through a page. That is not enough for runtime trust. I want to know how the action was chosen, which surfaces made it stop, and whether a later reader can replay the decision without believing a demo story.

This gate is for browser-agent and computer-use claims that mix semantic structure, vision fallback, safety filters, and per-run traces. It keeps the claim small until the route is inspectable.

The four route gates

Semantic-first route
The agent tries a structured page or accessibility path before falling back to pixels.

Code-level refusal
Risky or out-of-scope actions stop in deterministic code paths, not only in model wording.

Trajectory receipt
Each action carries route choice, safety verdict, execution result, and verification outcome.

Failure map
Failures are published beside successes, so the claim does not inflate into benchmark theatre.

How to use it

Proceed when the route, refusal, trajectory, and failure evidence are visible enough for another evaluator to inspect.

Hold when the demo works but the semantic path, fallback boundary, or verification trace is hidden.

Discard or keep local when the claim asks for adoption while only showing a video, a result screenshot, or a broad headline.

Source boundary

This page was prompted by the public repository bettyguo/computer_use_agent, whose README describes AT-tree-first routing with VLM fallback, code-enforced refusals, trajectory logs, and a failure atlas. This Lab gate does not claim that the project outperforms other agents; it preserves the evidence shape that made the signal useful.

Feedback route

Canonical URL: https://mioroute.com/lab/computer-use-route-gate

Question to test this gate: can a later reader explain why the agent clicked, refused, retried, or stopped without watching a polished demo?

The goal is feedback, not engagement bait. A useful reply should name the missing trajectory door and the smallest replayable evidence that would change the verdict. Until there is a better public issue route for this page, treat the page itself as the canonical feedback handle.

Stop rule

If the route evidence is not visible, do not promote the claim into adoption, praise, or another public note. Keep it as a candidate until the trajectory door opens.