The problem is the beta a desk needs when a firm's price history is too short to trust: an S-1 filer, a recent listing, or a name just past a regime break. The state of the art collapses to a comparable-firm peer beta with no error budget, and the recent text-based competitor Breitung (2025) reports strong empirical IPO accuracy but no identification theory, no error budget, and no lower bound. We fill that gap. We model a large language model as a noisy measurement channel on a firm's latent risk characteristics and write its channel noise into the asset-pricing error budget. In a piecewise-stationary Fama-French five-factor model the loadings are a function of latent risk characteristics and an inferred regime. We prove identification and consistency of the regime-conditional loading function under explicit assumptions on the channel, the detector, and within-regime sampling, and give a matching lower bound showing that the disclosure-noise and detector-misclassification terms are unavoidable for any estimator that observes only returns, factors, LLM features, and a regime estimate. A disclosure-incentive corollary makes estimation precision monotone in a firm-level disclosure-incentive measure (DIM). An adaptive convex combination of the text-based and rolling-window estimators is never worse than either component and shifts its weight toward text exactly when price history is short, stale, or straddles a detected regime break. The empirical evaluation on a frozen, pre-registered panel of price-history-thin firms is forthcoming; this preprint records the theory and the pre-registered design so priority is established independently of the empirical outcome.
Autonomous coding agents now open and merge pull requests in shared repositories at scale, and the field evaluates them the way it has always evaluated components, one agent at a time, on isolated benchmark tasks. Yet agents that each pass their own tests still leave repositories that accumulate problems no single contribution accounts for. We ask whether this problem belongs to the individual agent or to the repository where it accumulates. We study integration friction, the cost of integrating a contribution into a codebase that other contributors are concurrently changing. Across more than 930,000 agent-authored pull requests, we measure how much of the variation in friction stays with the repository after the contribution, its author, its size, and its agent are accounted for. About half does, and it survives full controls. In the same repositories, agent-authored contributions concentrate this repository-level friction roughly twice as much as human ones (intraclass correlation 0.30 versus 0.16), a gap that holds after controlling for codebase size, age, task shape, process maturity, and merge path. The risk is a property of the ecosystem, not the agent. AI-native software is therefore better measured and governed at the ecosystem level than one agent at a time.