Revelation Control is the problem of choosing priced interventions that reveal hidden state only insofar as the revealed distinctions can change a consequential decision, while accounting separately for any useful progress created by the intervention itself. We develop this theory for learning systems, where states equivalent under declared current information can respond differently to future training and favor different actions. The framework defines decision-sufficient revelation and revelation depth, separates pure information value from productive reuse, embeds static Bayes refinement into state-dependent continuation value, and gives an exact cost-adjusted factorization criterion: an additional shallow coordinate is decision-nonredundant only when states sharing a scalar summary lie on opposite sides of the priced Stop/Continue boundary. We also give a target-independent protocol for model-specific instantiation and prove that bounded stop-flip risk alone cannot certify positive expected utility under unrestricted severity. Across Qwen2.5-7B and Mistral-7B-v0.3, deeper future-learning probes have positive decision value and productive reuse yields strict equal-compute utility advantages. Qwen additionally provides evidence for a decision-nonredundant shallow revealability regime; in Mistral, a scalar continuation architecture fit only on an independent development panel retains positive familywise-adjusted lower bounds on a disjoint target panel, consistent with scalar decision sufficiency within the tested architecture family and resolution. The evidence supports structural rather than numerical transfer: the decision theory, cost accounting, continuation logic, and evaluation protocol transport, while empirical proxies, coefficients, thresholds, and even the required shallow state dimension may be system-specific.
Real-world decision-making in public health and social science can greatly benefit from predictive models, yet translating predictions into effective interventions requires explaining the model behavior. While Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are well-suited for modeling relational data, existing explanation methods largely operate at the node level and fall short of supporting actionable, network-level intervention design. Existing counterfactual GNN explainers, such as CF-GNNExplainer and CF$^2$, rely on continuous mask optimization over features and edges, which implicitly assume feasible edge manipulation, may allocate effort to immutable or non-actionable attributes, and incur substantial computational overhead. Further, the method of arriving at the explanation itself is difficult to explain to a domain specialist who is not an AI expert. Can simple methods generate good explanations? To explore this, we reframe counterfactual explanation as an intervention design problem. At the local level, we generate counterfactuals via a greedy search that directly identifies minimal, actionable changes to node features and neighbor-level conditions. We derive conditions under which the greedy search provides guarantees, and empirically show that these conditions are approximately met. These counterfactuals are converted into interpretable rules suitable for real-world intervention. At the network level, we formulate intervention selection as a Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF) coverage problem under a budget constraint, which is nondecreasing and approximately submodular, enabling a greedy algorithm with theoretical guarantees. Experiments on synthetic graphs and real-world suicide risk networks demonstrate that our approach produces scalable, cost-effective intervention strategies with significantly improved efficiency over mask-based counterfactual methods.
Organizations routinely run experiments for A/B testing, yet the data generated from one experiment is underutilized to inform subsequent intervention design. Significant barriers exist to extracting actionable knowledge from prior experimental data to inform new interventions. We study whether tool-augmented agentic AI can automatically learn from experimental data to generate new interventions in subsequent experiments. Through two-stage field experiments in healthcare prescription messaging (693,139 patient visits), we compare a Human + Chatbot method (Stage 1: behavioral experts with conversational AI co-designing 13 message variants, 444,691 patient visits) against a Tool-Augmented Agentic AI method (Stage 2: AI autonomously extracting principles from Stage 1 data to generate 17 new variants, 248,448 patient visits). The Agentic AI method, equipped with analytical tools, structured Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom (DIKW) reasoning agents, and transparent evidence chains, produces superior interventions: the best AI-generated message achieved a 69.8% CTR (+6.5 percentage points over baseline). Critically, our results suggest that the value comes from domain-specific experimental data, not from general reasoning ability: frontier LLMs operating without experimental data failed to predict which interventions would succeed. The field experiments also revealed that general-purpose behavioral theories used for intervention design do not extend uniformly to specific healthcare contexts, motivating an agentic AI approach to theory audits at field-experiment scale. Our research shows that tool-augmented AI can learn from experimental data and generate improved domain-relevant interventions, transforming behavioral experimentation from one-shot evaluation into a scalable system for cumulative design learning.