Exposure Is Not Commitment: Double-Stratified Evaluation of Latent Monitors for Tool-Using Agents

Tool-using language agents are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection, and a growing literature probes model internals to catch unsafe actions before they execute, with sharply conflicting results. We argue much of the conflict is an evaluation artifact, and propose a double-stratification protocol: separate injection exposure from behavioral commitment, in both the evaluation and the training population. On the primary Qwen grid, monitors trained on the naive mixed unsafe-versus-rest contrast mostly learn exposure: they flag exposed trajectories whether or not the agent complies, and barely predict which turn unsafe. Retrained on exposed cases only, the same probe families predict the model's own unsafe tool call up to two steps early, the maximum the three-step trajectories admit (logistic AUROC 0.853, matched by a trained TF-IDF text baseline at 0.855). Mistral-7B reaches 0.896 and OLMo-2-7B 0.912; their naive contrasts learn different things: inverted exposure ranking on one, both axes on the other. Representations separate on exposure (probe 1.000 versus trained text 0.908) and where visible context is sanitized or unavailable. Training contrast alone reproduces the shape of recent pre-action-probe negative results, one candidate explanation for the conflict: the signal exists, but the model's own zero-shot forecast and NLA verbalizations do not reliably recover it. An unstratified AUROC overstates what a latent monitor knows, and what a naive contrast learns is population-dependent: evaluations should stratify both.