Imagine you're training a new delivery driver. You teach them to read maps, plan routes, and operate the vehicle. Then you grade them only on whether the package arrived — never on whether they checked their mirrors, anticipated a red light, or verified the address before walking away. That's roughly what the embodied AI field is doing, and this survey paper from NUS's ShowLab makes the gap uncomfortably visible. The paper introduces PAPAV — Perceive, Anticipate, Plan, Act, Verify — a five-function framework that applies uniformly to computer-use agents (clicking buttons in a browser), robotic systems (grasping objects on a table), and the hybrid category the authors call multimodal embodied agents (MMEAs). The key move is defining these categories by capability rather than architecture, which lets you line them up side by side and ask: what does a digital agent take for granted that a physical agent cannot? The answer is five physical constraints: partial observability, irreversible actions, continuous state spaces, real-time latency requirements, and outcomes that can't be fully verified after the fact. Across 64 benchmarks surveyed, the landscape is lopsided. Explicit evaluation overwhelmingly targets the Act function — did the robot grasp the object, did the agent complete the web task. Only 5 of 64 benchmarks assess Anticipate (predicting action effects before committing), and just 3 assess Verify (confirming the outcome after acting). Perceive and Plan get moderate coverage, but the two capabilities that most distinguish safe physical agents from reckless ones are essentially untested in the community's standard evaluation toolkit. This is a survey-and-framework paper, not an empirical contribution. There is no new model, no new benchmark, no new dataset. The value proposition is organizational: PAPAV gives the field a shared vocabulary to diagnose where its evaluation infrastructure has blind spots. The five physical constraints are well-articulated — partial observability and irreversibility in particular are framed as the fundamental reasons why computer-use agent techniques don't transfer cleanly to robotics. The framework itself is sensible but not deeply surprising to anyone who has worked in robotics or control theory. Perceive-plan-act loops are decades old; adding anticipate and verify is a useful refinement, but the novelty is more in the systematic audit of benchmarks than in the conceptual apparatus. The real contribution is the 64-benchmark census and the stark finding that anticipation and verification are nearly invisible in current evaluation. What's missing is any empirical validation of the framework's utility. The authors don't build a system using PAPAV and show it outperforms one that doesn't, nor do they propose concrete benchmark designs for the neglected capabilities. The paper identifies the gap — it doesn't close it. The project website aggregates resources, but the paper itself is a map, not a bridge. For the field, the actionable takeaway is clear: if you're building embodied agents and only measuring task success, you're hiding your system's weakest links behind a single number. The 5-out-of-64 stat for Anticipate and 3-out-of-64 for Verify should be uncomfortable for any lab publishing benchmark results. Whether PAPAV becomes the standard decomposition or gets refined, the audit it performs is genuinely useful.
