You know how some people think by talking, and others think by sketching on a napkin? The sketch-on-a-napkin people aren't decorating — they're running a different cognitive algorithm. A line going up-then-down communicates a trend faster than a table of 50 numbers. This paper asks: can we give AI data-analysis agents the napkin? The committed claim: charts are not just outputs for human consumption — they function as epistemic actions inside an agent's reasoning loop, and agents can be taught to deploy them selectively through distilled experience, without any parameter updates to the underlying model. The authors call this CHARTEXP, and it sits atop any ReAct-style agent backbone. First, the diagnostic. The authors build CHARTPROBE, a controlled 200-task benchmark that holds the analytical question constant while varying the interface: text-only, chart-only, text+chart access, or forced-chart. The key finding is a persistent gap between capability and behavior. Agents score just as well reading self-generated charts as reading numeric output — but when given the option to plot, they rarely do so spontaneously. Charts win on temporal trends, pattern detection, and anomaly spotting; text wins on precise lookups and conditional verification. The interface matters, and the match between interface and task type matters more. CHARTEXP works by generating conditioned trajectory rollouts — running the agent through tasks under each interface condition, then having a trajectory judge score both the final outcome and intermediate steps. Two families of experience get distilled: one teaches operation selection and verification, the other teaches modality selection — when to plot, when to query, when to do both. A validation gate only admits experience traces that improve held-out performance, filtering out noise and lucky runs. The results span three held-out benchmarks (not CHARTPROBE itself) across four LLM backbones. CHARTEXP raises analytical accuracy and visual evidence quality over matched baselines. The most striking result: backbones that had never generated a chart during analysis begin doing so after experience injection — and their accuracy improves. All of this happens through in-context experience retrieval, not fine-tuning or gradient updates. The integrity picture is mixed but honest. The authors compare against ReAct, Plan-and-Solve, and several experience-augmented baselines. The benchmark suite is custom-built (CHARTPROBE for probing, three held-out sets for evaluation), which means the community hasn't independently validated the task distributions. Four backbone LLMs provide some robustness signal, but we're still in same-team-evaluation territory. No code release is mentioned in the abstract. The real contribution is conceptual: treating visualization as an internal reasoning modality rather than a final reporting step. This reframes the role of charts in agentic pipelines from presentation layer to cognition layer. The gap between 'can read charts' and 'chooses to make charts' is the kind of behavioral finding that shapes how people design agent architectures going forward.
