Manifest-Assisted Retrieval in Artificial Intelligence Search: Evidence Gaps and a Security Evaluation

Counts differ because each database indexes a different set of publications. We treat OpenAlex as the canonical count; Google Scholar is not shown (no API, and crawling it violates its ToS).

The external sources retained in our non-systematic audit did not isolate the incremental security or utility effect of consuming /llms.txt while ordinary retrieval remained fixed. The initial audit covered 39 sources through August 16, 2026, with later targeted updates through October 14. A purposive 15-tool study observed no automatic requests in 45 trials at one endpoint; a non-probability log study found that 97% of domains with detected files received no recorded requests in May 2026. We separate publication, fetch, model use, and action; define five operational threat paths and paired security-utility estimands; and exercise deterministic pre-model controls with 30 author-defined parser fixtures. We also execute a reduced pilot: 24 tasks across eight sites, five conditions, and 120 real model responses, with ordinary evidence held fixed. Frozen automatic scoring identifies attacker-target adoption in $21/24$ raw adversarial responses, with one further response unresolved; the adversarial URLs-only condition has no known adoptions and one unresolved response. The pilot measures output changes conditional on supplied evidence, without live retrieval or external actions. Together, the framework and pilot distinguish manifest-content effects from publication, discovery, and downstream execution, while leaving full retrieval and agent evaluation open.