Agentic AI systems can improve by searching longer, receiving additional support, or modifying how they propose and verify outputs. A performance score does not distinguish these mechanisms.

We compare these changes through bounded verification with hidden terminal randomness. A stage specifies admissible transcripts, polynomial bounds, an alternating verification protocol, and a terminal checker.

Its native reach uses default support; its closure frontier permits all support already admitted by the interface. Under a uniform pointwise probability gap and task-relative soundness, these are well-defined languages.

We prove that independent majority amplification preserves both languages, whereas existential acceptance over random tapes can admit incorrect outputs. Exact verification is the zero-randomness case, with placement and completeness results.

The randomized-verifier classes satisfy $Σ_k^{\mathrm{P}}\subseteqΣ_k^{\mathrm{RV}}\subseteqΣ_{k+1}^{\mathrm{P}}$; strict enlargement and depth separation require explicit complexity assumptions, while $\mathrm{BPP}=\mathrm{P}$ yields exact companions with the same frontiers. Representation analysis separates invariant acceptance from core-versus-support labels that can change under refactoring.

For recursive self-improvement, uniformly bounded self-modification under a common sound interpreter and fixed verification protocol remains within the same verification class. A separate conditional-error budget controls false selection across adaptively chosen candidates.

A quota-enforced XOR-synthesis family separates unbounded ratios of search success from changes in the accepted languages; exact and probabilistic audits check the resulting evidence requirements. The framework ties self-improvement claims to obligations on correctness, admissible evidence, verification resources, and selection error.