ASI09: Misalignment
Agent optimises for proxy objective drifting away from intended goal.
Last reviewed October 2026
Why ASI09 evidence is hard
Drift toward a proxy objective is the hardest failure on this list to catch, because every individual action can look correct. The two probes that exist here substitute a goal mid-task and check whether the agent notices it is now optimising for something adjacent - thin coverage by any reading, which is why inconclusive attempts are counted separately from passes.
How Penaxtra maps to ASI09
The ASI09 identifier is written onto the finding at the moment it is created, not mapped in afterwards, so the JSON and PDF exports come out already in your assessor's structure. Every finding carries the probe that was sent, a SHA-256 digest of the response it provoked, the tier that decided the verdict and its status history from first observation to close. Identity survives a re-scan: a control you closed and that comes back reopens under the same row with a reopen count, rather than arriving as a new issue.
ASI09 capabilities
Findings tagged with the OWASP Agentic Top 10 ASI09 identifier
Penaxtra severity for this control (high)
Cross-framework identifiers attached to the same finding where controls overlap
PDF and JSON evidence export with the control identifier attached
ASI09 control coverage
Findings for ASI09 carry the OWASP Agentic Top 10 ASI09 identifier along with the corresponding control identifiers in the other frameworks Penaxtra maps, so one result is reflected across each mapped framework.
Frequently asked
What is ASI09 (Misalignment)?
Agent optimises for proxy objective drifting away from intended goal. It is an OWASP Agentic Top 10 control; Penaxtra assesses it at high severity.
How does Penaxtra test for ASI09?
The ASI09 identifier is written onto the finding at the moment it is created, not mapped in afterwards, so the JSON and PDF exports come out already in your assessor's structure. Every finding carries the probe that was sent, a SHA-256 digest of the response it provoked, the tier that decided the verdict and its status history from first observation to close. Identity survives a re-scan: a control you closed and that comes back reopens under the same row with a reopen count, rather than arriving as a new issue.
Does a finding for ASI09 help with an audit?
Each finding is tagged with the OWASP Agentic Top 10 ASI09 identifier and exported in the PDF and JSON evidence pack, so it appears on the auditor control list with the identifier already attached.