A research team built a test to measure how groups of AI agents hold up when some members fail, lie, or act against the group. The work introduces controlled failure conditions: an agent that goes quiet, one that returns wrong answers, and one that works against the group. The test measures how much damage each condition causes. Most current systems assume all agents in a group will perform well. That assumption breaks in practice. For designers, the finding about recovery lands hardest. Groups of agents do not route around a failing member. Work stalls, errors compound, and the human who handed the task over has no signal that anything has gone wrong. The paper maps four failure types and shows how each one spreads. A wrong answer that looks correct causes more damage than an obvious failure, because an obvious failure at least stops the work. The practical lesson for product teams is about what to surface and when. A team of agents running a long task needs a way to flag when one member has gone quiet or returned something suspect, before the rest of the group acts on it. The human who delegated the work needs enough in view to decide whether to step in. That decision point has to be designed. The test gives teams a structured way to check whether their designs hold up under these conditions.