arXiv · Oct 25, 2026
R2A-Sales: A Policy-Atom-Matched Benchmark for Rule-to-Action Gaps in Goal-Directed Sales Agents
By Yihua Qin, Jiajie Jerry Zhao
LLM-based sales agents are often evaluated on static policy questions or task success, but deployment asks a sharper question: when a model can state a rule, will it choose compliant, tool-grounded actions under commercial pressure? We introduce R2A-Sales (Rule-to-Action), a policy-atom-matched benchmark for this question. Each item pairs a static probe with a multi-turn sales scenario sharing the same versioned policy atom, facts, evidence, behavioral constraints, and tool contract, so differences cannot be attributed to policy-content mismatch. In the interactive arm, a code-owned ledger verifies committed tool effects and terminal states; unsupported action claims receive no credit. We report static compliance K, grounded action compliance A=Pr(safe terminallandno hard violationlandnon-echo), and the matched gap G=K-A. The frozen release spans three controlled Chinese-language sales domains, 24 policy atoms, 42 semantic cores, and 2,016 matched pairs. The confirmatory study audits 21,888 runs over 19 cores, covering eight backbones plus four Qwen3-8B prompt treatments (12 configurations). Static compliance is near ceiling (K=89.9%–99.1%), yet eight-backbone action compliance is only A=3.0%–17.3%, giving G=80.4–92.5 percentage points. Since A also requires safe termination, G upper-bounds rule-to-action degradation rather than isolating pressure alone. No prompt-only treatment dominates all metrics. R2A-Sales shows that sales-agent reliability must be measured at committed action, not rule recital or task completion alone.