Assess whether an agent may take actions without a human gate (949ac8)

Situation

Vendor-diligence reviewer for AI tools in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm has one working extract — generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft — after a business unit that already went live without a risk tier. If generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft cannot support an agent may take, the honest AI Governance output is hold.

Decision

Vendor-diligence reviewer for AI tools in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm must choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact using generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft after a business unit that already went live without a risk tier.

Hypotheses to test

• Authorize Policy or governance breach now; generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft already has the discriminator after a business unit that already went live without a risk tier.
• Keep Model defect in force until generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft is completed after a business unit that already went live without a risk tier for vendor-diligence reviewer for AI tools.
• Treat generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft as Dual failure because both readings appear after a business unit that already went live without a risk tier.
• Refuse a AI Governance close: vendor-diligence reviewer for AI tools does not have the page an agent may take turns on in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft.

Analysis required

• Split policy-or-governance failure from a model defect using prompts, outputs, and human edits in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft.
• Reproduce the incident row in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft and say whether it ever touched production data.
• Split policy-or-governance failure from a model defect using prompts, outputs, and human edits in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft.
• For this AI Governance Vendors and Agentic Systems file, read generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft against a business unit that already went live without a risk tier and write the one fact that would move an agent may take for vendor-diligence reviewer for AI tools.

Recommendation

Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance / Vendors and Agentic Systems packet (generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft after a business unit that already went live without a risk tier). Lead with the AI Governance option generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft can support after a business unit that already went live without a risk tier, then the two facts that force it, then the Monday action for vendor-diligence reviewer for AI tools in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm.

Command returns

• Bottom-line AI Governance option on an agent may take, then the evidence in generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft, then the action for vendor-diligence reviewer for AI tools
• Hypothesis scorecard against generative-AI acceptable-use policy draft: supported / rejected / untestable
• Named option among Policy or governance breach, Model defect, Dual failure and the fact that kills the others
• Owner and next date for vendor-diligence reviewer for AI tools in a city using a hiring-screen algorithm