Do you have a valid argument that nonagentive programmes would be dangerous? Because saying "it would agentively do X" isn't a valid argument. Pointing out the hidden pitfalls of such programmes is something MIRI could usefully do. An unargued belief that everything is dangerous is not useful.

I'm claiming that "nonagent" is not descriptive enough to actually build one. You replied that we already have non agents, and I replied that we already have safe computer programs. Just like we can't extrapolate from our safe programs that any AI will be safe, we can't extrapolate from our safe nonagents that any non-agent will be safe.

Well: how likely is an AI designed to be nonagentive as a safety feature to have that particular failure mode?

I still have little idea what you mean by nonagent. It's a black box, that may have some recognizable features from the outside, but doesn't tell you how to build it.