Imagine a factory assembly line where every station has its own quality inspector, and every inspector signs off that their station's work is perfect. The widget passes all checks. But at the end of the line, the finished product doesn't work — because nobody checked whether Station 3's output was actually what Station 4 needed as input. That's the core problem this paper systematizes: decentralized agent economies compose tasks from independently designed protocols, and the guarantees established at one stage don't necessarily constrain later stages. The committed claim: existing decentralized agent infrastructure suffers from 'guarantee closure' failures — situations where a guarantee proven at one lifecycle stage (say, verification of work quality) fails to propagate to a later stage (say, payment settlement). The paper introduces this as a formal, task-relative criterion and then stress-tests it across real systems. This isn't proposing a fix; it's building the diagnostic framework that makes fixes possible. The systematization covers the full lifecycle of an agent task across six stages, organizing security and economic requirements into 17 property families. Receipt soundness and completeness get separate treatment — a subtle but important distinction, since a receipt can be sound (if issued, it's valid) without being complete (valid work doesn't always produce a receipt). The authors examine 12 systems and standards including on-chain escrow mechanisms, agent protocol standards, and verification layers, plus five reusable mechanism families and four classical baselines from mechanism design. The empirical backbone is surprisingly rigorous for a SoK paper. The authors run 840 matched executions across controlled and native workflows, then perform an exhaustive 11,648-case check over a finite objective-task domain. The key finding: recurring failures cluster between verification and settlement. Conforming work can remain unaccepted. Valid evidence can be ignored. The gap between 'a model judged this acceptable' and 'on-chain records reflect task conformance' is where value leaks. The architecture insight worth internalizing: these systems compose escrow (economic), verification (computational), and settlement (consensus) layers that were each designed for different threat models. Escrow releases on authorized approval — but 'authorized approval' and 'evidence that the delivered work satisfied the task' are different claims backed by different evidence. The paper traces exactly where this mismatch creates exploitable seams. The economic analysis identifies three critical assumptions underlying existing guarantees: report assumptions (who reports outcomes and with what incentives), penalty assumptions (what happens when agents defect), and shared-error assumptions (how correlated failures are handled). When these assumptions break — and the paper shows they do — the end-to-end guarantee dissolves even though every individual component behaves correctly. This is the kind of systematization that a rapidly moving field desperately needs. Decentralized agent economies are being built right now, composing payment rails, verification systems, and task orchestration from separate projects. This paper provides the vocabulary and the formal criterion for asking whether those compositions actually preserve the guarantees each component advertises. The answer, across 12 systems examined: frequently, they don't.
