Concept erasure aims to selectively eliminate undesired visual semantics from pre-trained generative models without compromising their general utility. Extending concept erasure from images to video is nontrivial. Target concepts emerge gradually and vary across frames and denoising steps. As a result, fixed interventions may miss the target or introduce blurring, jitter, and content distortion. We propose CleanVideo, a selective erasure framework that performs low-dimensional subspace intervention controlled by a tri-modal gating mechanism. By jointly processing spatiotemporal visual features, timestep signals, and textual semantics, CleanVideo determines where, when, and whether to intervene, steering erased content toward natural surrogate concepts when such surrogates can be clearly defined while preserving non-target content. Experiments on three video diffusion models show that CleanVideo effectively erases target concepts while maintaining visual fidelity and temporal coherence, outperforming existing baselines under frame-level and video-level evaluations and under concept-recovery attacks when the protected pipeline remains intact.
LLM agents choose tools and arguments from context that mixes user requests, tool outputs, retrieved records, memory, and untrusted text. Evidence can be relevant without being authorized to determine a decision, so a correct action need not be grounded only in permitted evidence. We introduce a target-specific authorization audit that labels context factors separately for each tool and argument target. Its primary test holds the task, proposition, position, and policy fixed while changing only the proposition's source authority. We then test behavior when valid evidence is weakened and use context-subset interactions as a secondary localization diagnostic. Across 450 controlled next-action tasks and multiple open-weight LLM families, trusted and untrusted variants produce different actions in 5.4 percent of competing cases versus 1.7 percent of supporting cases. Under controlled degradation, unauthorized competition is retained in a full-correct, mixed-error, clean-correct pattern in 2.4 percent of comparisons, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 2.1 to 3.0 percent. These are controlled stress-set rates, not deployment prevalence. The models respond to textual source-authority cues, but this does not prevent untrusted evidence from influencing their actions.