Permission
What the system can technically access.
The method
Authority should follow evidence—not access.
Agenvision organizes the facts needed for an organization to decide whether a specific automated action can proceed independently.
Capability
What the system has demonstrated it can do.
Authority
What the organization decides the system may do independently.
Core principles
Evidence has a boundary.
A conclusion is only as useful as the system, action, conditions, and evidence it actually describes.
Exact version, exact evidence
Models, prompts, knowledge, workflows, tools, and permissions shape behavior. Agenvision ties findings to an exact fingerprint so changes do not inherit evidence automatically.
No universal trust score
A system can be well-supported for one narrow action and unverified for another. A single number would hide the conditions and limitations that matter.
Evaluations shape the recommendation
Normal, boundary, failure, and adversarial cases reveal where evidence supports independence—and where approval, escalation, or a block should remain.
The organization decides
Agenvision recommends an authority profile. The organization retains responsibility for its policies, risk choices, approval boundaries, and final decision.
Changes trigger reevaluation
When the fingerprint or operating context changes, affected evidence is marked stale. Targeted reevaluation can refresh only the conclusions the change may influence.
Types of evidence
A decision should be inspectable.
Evidence can come from several sources, but it must remain traceable to the conclusion it supports.
- Scenario evaluations
- Tool-call traces
- Observed outcomes
- Policy assertions
- Failure and adversarial tests
- Human review findings
See the method in context