Research agents increasingly conduct multi-round machine-learning experiments in industrial recommendation settings and retain the resulting trajectories to guide later decisions. Yet a completed trajectory is not automatically evidence: generated artifacts may be unsupported or incomplete, executed rounds may be invalid or confounded, and later modifications may obscure earlier findings. We study \textbf{trajectory-to-evidence conversion}, asking what a completed research process has actually established. We introduce an evidence-grounded framework that couples bounded verification of consequential artifacts with post-execution claim qualification. A context-isolated generate--verify--repair process checks artifacts for evidence violations and missing downstream requirements before release. After execution, validity and attribution checks consolidate evidence across rounds, qualify intervention-level claims as actionable repairs, diagnostic guards, or withheld findings, and preserve admitted claims as auditable records with explicit provenance and applicability boundaries. A hybrid LLM-assisted controller subsequently applies, defers, or rejects records based on available target evidence. Record audits characterize which claims survive qualification, while downstream diagnostics identify affirmative applicability judgment as a bottleneck for the tested controller. Across paper-to-target adaptations, later rounds often improve on the first, while final rounds frequently underperform an earlier best, exposing non-monotonic trajectory evolution. Candidates produced through the complete workflow also yielded positive online lifts relative to deployed baselines.
Industrial recommendation strategy iteration heavily relies on large-scale A/B experimentation. Traditional tuning requires experts to repeatedly design strategies, configure experiments, analyze results, and adjust parameters, making the process labor-intensive and time-consuming. Meanwhile, valuable knowledge from historical experiments is often fragmented, making systematic reuse difficult through manual expert effort alone. Existing RAG agents partially alleviate this burden by retrieving prior strategies, but typically organize experience in a flat manner, overlooking the hierarchical relationships among business scenarios, recommendation stages, optimization objectives, and experimental contexts. This often results in mismatched retrieval and limited cross-scenario transfer, while preventing agents from continuously refining strategies and parameters through sequential A/B feedback. % To address these limitations, we propose A/B Agent, a closed-loop A/B agent for industrial recommendation strategy optimization. The framework comprises three tightly coupled core components: Historical Strategy Knowledge Organization, Autonomous Target-Aware Strategy Generation, and Experiment-Guided Strategy Self-Evolution. It organizes historical strategies into a hierarchical experience tree, retrieves transferable evidence through multi-path Tree-RAG to generate executable strategies, and continuously analyzes online A/B feedback to guide autonomous tuning and update the experience tree for self-evolution. Extensive offline and online evaluations demonstrate its effectiveness, including a 4.829% improvement in GMV in a real-world short-video e-commerce recommendation system while maintaining positive gains across all guardrail metrics.