Your use of the term agent is I think telling. An agent is something that acts, and in this context I think it's fair to extend it to say that it acts consciously, yet under panpsychism all these conscious particles are not agents in any active sense at all. Their ‘awareness’ is a hidden variable with no external consequences, because all of their interactions are deterministic as described by physics. A 'conscious' photon doesn't decide to interact with an atom, or choose to be reflected or not by a semi-mirrored surface.

But if that is so, how can assemblies of such particles form any kind of aggregate consciousness? How can the conscious experiences coalesce if they cannot interact? If the interactions of the particles are described only by physics, as seems to be the case, then the fact they are individually conscious in some sense is irrelevant because that can have no consequences for the behaviour or even the ‘experience’ of the assembly. Imagining otherwise is to invoke some sort of psychic or spiritual connection, but then if that connection has any physical consequences at all then it can’t really in any meaningful way be separate from physics. If it's not separate, then it's measurable and we should be able to make falsifiable claims about it and tests for it.

So I don’t see how this flavour of panpsychism (dual aspect monism) can actually help illuminate or resolve the problem of _our_ consciousness at all, or any of the philosophical problems and questions associated with it, even in principle.