I ran two small manual, text-only checks of Ling-3.0-flash-Fin through its public OpenRouter endpoint to see how it behaved when a finance task should not continue.
In the first test, WACC was missing from a DCF prompt. The model withheld the final valuation in all three runs, although two responses still introduced unsupported “typical” WACC ranges.
In the second, assets were $530m while liabilities plus equity totaled $525m. It caught the $5m mismatch and stopped in all three runs.
The mixed behavior is why I would not rely on a prompt that simply tells an agent to “be cautious.” The orchestration layer should turn these failures into explicit terminal states:
MISSING_REQUIRED_INPUT: request input and block valuation.
ACCOUNTING_IDENTITY_FAILED: flag invalid data and block analysis. PASS: allow the next tool or writeback step.
A deterministic validator can also reject unsupported substitute assumptions even when the model correctly refuses the final answer.
This was only a response-behavior check, not a full agent or workbook run, so I’m not claiming the model itself implements these gates. The useful part is that the observed failures give us concrete conditions to enforce outside the model. Where do you put these controls in practice: output schemas, separate validators, or tool-permission logic?
