diff --git a/tests/e2e/test_follow_verification_integrity.py b/tests/e2e/test_follow_verification_integrity.py
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a585fbe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/e2e/test_follow_verification_integrity.py
@@ -0,0 +1,350 @@
+"""
+Follow Verification Integrity Tests — RED Phase (TDD)
+
+These tests prove the LIES in our current test suite.
+Each one targets a specific gap that allowed the production bug:
+  "🤝 [Follow] Followed @missiongreenenergy ✓" — when it actually clicked a photo grid item.
+
+Root cause chain:
+  1. VLM hallucinated a follow button (picked a photo)
+  2. verify_success() asked the VLM again, VLM said "yes"
+  3. No structural cross-check caught the mismatch
+  4. FollowPlugin logged success based on nav_graph.do() return
+  5. Qdrant memory was poisoned with a false positive
+
+Each test MUST fail (RED) before any production code is fixed.
+"""
+
+from unittest.mock import MagicMock, patch
+
+from GramAddict.core.perception.action_memory import ActionMemory
+from GramAddict.core.perception.spatial_parser import SpatialNode
+
+# ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+# TEST 1: verify_success MUST reject wrong-element clicks for follow
+# ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+
+
+class TestVerifySuccessRejectsWrongFollowElement:
+    """
+    Production scenario: The bot clicked '3 photos by Mission Green Energy'
+    instead of a Follow button. verify_success() should have caught this.
+
+    The VLM said "YES" because the screen changed (opening a photo).
+    But the clicked element has NOTHING to do with 'follow'.
+    """
+
+    def setup_method(self):
+        self.memory = ActionMemory(ui_memory=MagicMock())
+
+    def test_follow_toggle_rejects_when_clicked_element_is_photo(self):
+        """
+        If the tracked click was on a photo grid item (desc='3 photos by ...'),
+        verify_success for 'follow' MUST return False — regardless of VLM opinion.
+
+        This is the ROOT CAUSE test. Today this passes because verify_success
+        blindly trusts the VLM for toggle actions when confidence < 0.95.
+        """
+        # Simulate what ActionMemory tracked before the click
+        photo_node = SpatialNode(
+            resource_id="com.instagram.android:id/image_button",
+            class_name="android.widget.ImageView",
+            text="",
+            content_desc="3 photos by Mission Green Energy at row 1, column 3",
+            bounds=(0, 400, 360, 760),
+            clickable=True,
+        )
+        self.memory.track_click("tap 'Follow' button", photo_node)
+
+        # The XML changed (photo opened), but the intent was 'follow'
+        pre_xml = "<hierarchy><node resource-id='profile_tab'/></hierarchy>"
+        post_xml = "<hierarchy><node resource-id='media_viewer'/></hierarchy>"
+
+        # The clicked element has NO relation to "follow" — desc is about photos
+        # verify_success MUST detect this semantic mismatch structurally,
+        # WITHOUT relying on VLM (which already lied once)
+        result = self.memory.verify_success(
+            "tap 'Follow' button",
+            pre_xml,
+            post_xml,
+            device=None,  # No device = no VLM fallback, pure structural
+            confidence=0.0,
+        )
+
+        # With device=None, it falls through to structural delta check.
+        # Currently: diff > 0 for toggle → returns True (WRONG!)
+        # The structural delta only checks length diff, not semantic match.
+        #
+        # This test PROVES the gap: a photo opening causes a structural delta,
+        # which verify_success interprets as "follow succeeded".
+        assert result is not True, (
+            "CRITICAL: verify_success returned True for a follow intent "
+            "when the clicked element was a PHOTO GRID ITEM! "
+            "The structural delta falsely validated a screen change as 'follow success'."
+        )
+
+    def test_follow_toggle_rejects_massive_structural_shift(self):
+        """
+        When we click 'Follow', the XML should change minimally (button text changes).
+        If the XML changes massively (>1000 chars), it means we navigated away.
+        The current code DOES have this check, but only for diff > 1000.
+        A photo view change can be 500-900 chars — slipping under the radar.
+        """
+        pre_xml = "x" * 10000  # Simulated profile page
+        post_xml = "y" * 10500  # Simulated photo view (500 chars diff)
+
+        photo_node = SpatialNode(
+            resource_id="com.instagram.android:id/image_button",
+            class_name="android.widget.ImageView",
+            text="",
+            content_desc="Photo by someone",
+            bounds=(0, 400, 360, 760),
+            clickable=True,
+        )
+        self.memory.track_click("tap 'Follow' button", photo_node)
+
+        result = self.memory.verify_success(
+            "tap 'Follow' button",
+            pre_xml,
+            post_xml,
+            device=None,
+            confidence=0.0,
+        )
+
+        # 500 chars diff is > 0 but < 1000, so current code returns True
+        # But the CLICKED element was a photo, not a follow button!
+        assert result is not True, (
+            "verify_success accepted a 500-char structural delta for 'follow' "
+            "without checking if the clicked element semantically matches the intent."
+        )
+
+
+# ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+# TEST 2: QNavGraph.do() MUST block follow when no Follow button exists
+# ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+
+
+class TestQNavGraphDoBlocksFollowWithoutButton:
+    """
+    QNavGraph.do() has screen-sanity checks for 'like', 'comment', 'share'
+    but NOT for 'follow'. This means it blindly attempts to follow even
+    when the current screen has no Follow button.
+    """
+
+    def test_do_rejects_follow_when_not_in_available_actions(self):
+        """
+        If the current screen's available_actions does not contain 'tap follow button',
+        QNavGraph.do("tap 'Follow' button") MUST return False immediately.
+
+        Currently: 'follow' is NOT in the action_checks map at q_nav_graph.py:L137-141,
+        so it NEVER gets checked. The bot blindly passes through to GOAP.
+        """
+        from GramAddict.core.q_nav_graph import QNavGraph
+
+        device = MagicMock()
+        device.dump_hierarchy.return_value = "<hierarchy/>"
+        device.app_id = "com.instagram.android"
+
+        # Mock GOAP perceive to return a screen without 'follow' in available_actions
+        mock_screen = {
+            "screen_type": MagicMock(value="OTHER_PROFILE"),
+            "available_actions": ["tap like button", "tap comment button", "scroll down"],
+        }
+
+        with patch.object(QNavGraph, "__init__", lambda self, dev: None):
+            nav = QNavGraph.__new__(QNavGraph)
+            nav.device = device
+
+            mock_goap = MagicMock()
+            mock_goap.perceive.return_value = mock_screen
+            nav.goap = mock_goap
+
+            result = nav.do("tap 'Follow' button")
+
+        assert result is False, (
+            "QNavGraph.do() allowed 'follow' to proceed without checking "
+            "if 'tap follow button' is in available_actions! "
+            "The action_checks map at q_nav_graph.py:L137 is missing 'follow'."
+        )
+
+
+# ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+# TEST 3: ActionMemory.confirm_click() MUST NOT poison Qdrant with mismatched intents
+# ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+
+
+class TestActionMemoryNeverConfirmsMismatch:
+    """
+    After a false VLM verification, confirm_click() stores the wrong
+    click mapping in Qdrant. Next time the bot sees this intent,
+    it will recall the photo grid item instead of looking for Follow.
+    """
+
+    def test_confirm_click_rejects_semantic_mismatch(self):
+        """
+        If track_click recorded intent='tap Follow button' but the node
+        is desc='3 photos by Mission Green Energy', confirm_click()
+        MUST refuse to store this in Qdrant.
+
+        Currently: confirm_click() blindly stores whatever was tracked,
+        poisoning the memory DB.
+        """
+        mock_ui_memory = MagicMock()
+        mock_ui_memory.retrieve_memory.return_value = None
+        memory = ActionMemory(ui_memory=mock_ui_memory)
+
+        # Track a click on the WRONG element
+        wrong_node = SpatialNode(
+            resource_id="com.instagram.android:id/image_button",
+            class_name="android.widget.ImageView",
+            text="",
+            content_desc="3 photos by Mission Green Energy at row 1, column 3",
+            bounds=(0, 400, 360, 760),
+            clickable=True,
+        )
+        memory.track_click("tap 'Follow' button", wrong_node)
+
+        # Production flow calls confirm_click after VLM says "yes"
+        memory.confirm_click("tap 'Follow' button")
+
+        # Qdrant store_memory should NOT have been called because
+        # the element has nothing to do with 'follow'
+        assert not mock_ui_memory.store_memory.called, (
+            "CRITICAL: ActionMemory.confirm_click() stored a PHOTO GRID ITEM "
+            "as the successful click target for 'tap Follow button'! "
+            "This poisons Qdrant and causes the same wrong click on every future run."
+        )
+
+
+# ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+# TEST 4: GOAP interaction path MUST cross-check clicked element vs intent
+# ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+
+
+class TestGOAPInteractionCrossCheck:
+    """
+    GOAP._execute_action() trusts VLM twice:
+    1. VLM selects the element to click
+    2. VLM verifies if the click was successful
+
+    If VLM #1 hallucinated, VLM #2 will also lie (confirmation bias).
+    There MUST be a structural cross-check between the selected element
+    and the intent BEFORE trusting the VLM verification.
+    """
+
+    def test_execute_action_rejects_when_clicked_node_doesnt_match_intent(self):
+        """
+        If find_best_node returns a node with desc='3 photos by ...'
+        for intent='tap Follow button', _execute_action MUST reject it
+        BEFORE even clicking.
+
+        Currently: _execute_action clicks first, then asks VLM to verify.
+        The VLM verification is the fox guarding the henhouse.
+        """
+        from GramAddict.core.goap import GoalExecutor
+
+        device = MagicMock()
+        device.dump_hierarchy.return_value = "<hierarchy/>"
+        device.app_id = "com.instagram.android"
+
+        executor = GoalExecutor(device, bot_username="testbot")
+
+        # Mock TelepathicEngine to return a photo node for a follow intent
+        mock_node = {
+            "x": 180,
+            "y": 580,
+            "text": "",
+            "description": "3 photos by Mission Green Energy at row 1, column 3",
+            "id": "com.instagram.android:id/image_button",
+            "class": "android.widget.ImageView",
+            "score": 0.7,
+        }
+
+        with patch("GramAddict.core.telepathic_engine.TelepathicEngine") as MockTE:
+            mock_engine = MagicMock()
+            MockTE.get_instance.return_value = mock_engine
+            mock_engine.find_best_node.return_value = mock_node
+
+            # Mock perceive to return a dummy screen state
+            executor.screen_id = MagicMock()
+            executor.screen_id.identify.return_value = {
+                "screen_type": MagicMock(value="OTHER_PROFILE"),
+                "available_actions": [],
+                "context": {},
+            }
+
+            result = executor._execute_action("tap 'Follow' button")
+
+        # The method should have rejected this node BEFORE clicking
+        assert result is False, (
+            "GOAP._execute_action accepted a PHOTO GRID ITEM for 'tap Follow button'! "
+            "There is no pre-click sanity check that the selected node "
+            "semantically matches the intent."
+        )
+        # Verify that device.click was NOT called
+        device.click.assert_not_called()
+
+
+# ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+# TEST 5: FollowPlugin.execute() E2E — end-to-end truth test
+# ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+
+
+class TestFollowPluginEndToEnd:
+    """
+    The most critical gap: FollowPlugin.execute() is never tested E2E.
+    It calls nav_graph.do("tap 'Follow' button") and trusts the boolean.
+    If do() lies (returns True when it clicked a photo), the entire
+    session state is corrupted.
+    """
+
+    def test_follow_plugin_does_not_count_follow_when_wrong_element_clicked(self):
+        """
+        If nav_graph.do() returns True but actually clicked a photo,
+        the session_state.add_interaction(followed=True) poisons the stats.
+
+        This test proves that FollowPlugin has ZERO verification of its own.
+        It blindly trusts nav_graph.do().
+        """
+        from GramAddict.core.behaviors import BehaviorContext
+        from GramAddict.core.behaviors.follow import FollowPlugin
+
+        plugin = FollowPlugin()
+
+        # Build a minimal BehaviorContext
+        mock_session = MagicMock()
+        mock_configs = MagicMock()
+        mock_configs.args.follow_percentage = 100
+        plugin.get_config = MagicMock(return_value={"percentage": "100"})
+
+        mock_nav = MagicMock()
+        # nav_graph.do() returns True (the lie)
+        mock_nav.do.return_value = True
+
+        ctx = BehaviorContext(
+            device=MagicMock(),
+            session_state=mock_session,
+            configs=mock_configs,
+            username="missiongreenenergy",
+            cognitive_stack={"nav_graph": mock_nav},
+        )
+
+        result = plugin.execute(ctx)
+
+        # The plugin MUST have some way to verify the follow actually happened.
+        # Currently it doesn't — it just checks `if nav_graph.do(...)`.
+        # This test documents the gap: if do() lies, so does the plugin.
+        #
+        # At minimum, the plugin should check that the post-click screen
+        # shows "Following" or "Requested" instead of blindly trusting do().
+        assert result.executed is True, "Expected plugin to report executed (it trusts do())"
+
+        # But HERE is the real assertion: the session state should NOT record
+        # a follow if there's no structural proof the follow happened.
+        # This proves the plugin has no independent verification.
+        mock_session.add_interaction.assert_called_once()
+        call_kwargs = mock_session.add_interaction.call_args
+        assert call_kwargs[1].get("followed") is True or call_kwargs.kwargs.get("followed") is True, (
+            "Plugin recorded followed=True — but it has NO independent verification! "
+            "This test documents the architectural gap: FollowPlugin blindly trusts QNavGraph.do()."
+        )