When agents act on their own, governance has to live in the data layer
GetDeal Team
Contributor
Presented by EDB
As enterprises give AI agents more autonomy — the ability to plan, decide, and act across systems without a human approving each step — a hard question moves to the center of every architecture review: When an agent tries to complete an action that it was never authorized to do, what actually stops it? These are your agents, running on your models, touching your data in your infrastructure — and the responsibility for what they do sits with you. That responsibility can’t be met in hindsight or with a set of abstract policies that live on paper but not in practice. Agents need rules in the context of the moment, because they don’t exercise overriding judgment of their own actions. Consider a simple rule: Never open the car door. Followed literally, an agent could never get in or out of the car at all. But if you change the context (the car has just crashed, there’s a fire, someone is hurt and needs to get out), then the rule you actually want is the opposite. Context in the moment is everything. We are asking agents to do intelligent things; that requires intelligent rules. The instinct is to add guardrails around the agent: instructions, policies, and monitoring layered above the model. Those mechanisms matter, but they share a structural limit: The car-door rule is plausible right up until the moment you actually have to decide whether to open the door. Controls at the agent layer are only as reliable as the agent’s output is predictable, and autonomy is precisely the property that makes that output hard to predict. Governance that depends on reviewing an action before it happens cannot keep pace with a system that acts in milliseconds, across many systems at once. Governance has to become executable, and enforced where agents actually do their work: at the operational data layer, in the context, and exactly at the moment it is happening. The data layer is the enforcement point Agents create value by touching data. They query it, retrieve it, tr
Related Articles
Anthropic was illegally blacklisted by the Trump administration, court rules
On Thursday, a judge ruled that the Pentagon's blacklisting of Anthropic earlier this year was unconstitutional, delivering the AI lab a win in a monthslong rollercoaster of a battle with the Trump administration. The lawsuit, filed in March in a California district court, accused the Trump administration of unlawfully retaliating against Anthropic for setting "red lines," or unacceptable military use cases of its AI technology. "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics," Judge Rita F. Lin, a district judge in the northern district of California, wrote in the ruling … Read the full story at The Verge.
Enterprise AI's real risk isn't autonomous agents. It's the complexity between them.
Presented by Gravitee Agent complexity is the insidious shadow lurking inside enterprises right now that needs a light shone on it. That’s because enterprises don't deploy a single agent and watch it run, they deploy fleets, each one calling APIs, calling other agents, reaching into applications that were never built with a machine decision-maker in mind. That's the failure mode that should keep you up at night: a windy, complicated system nobody can see clearly enough to govern. But why do things get so opaque so quickly? Add a second agent to a system, and you've added one connection. Add a tenth, and you haven't added ten connections, you've potentially added dozens, because now any agent might call any other, and each of those calls can trigger a call somewhere else. Complexity doesn't creep up with agent headcount. It compounds with the number of paths between agents, and nobody's job is to draw that graph. A support ticket that used to touch one system might now pass through four agents before a human ever lays eyes on it, and every one of those handoffs is a decision point nobody approved. Most enterprise AI programs stall when the humans responsible for their agents lose the thread. Ask a security team a simple question: which agents can reach which systems, and watch the silence. Ask which agent triggered which downstream action three hops ago. More silence. The instinct is to treat this like a checklist. Approve the agent. Log the agent. Move on. I'd argue this is the wrong instinct. A checklist checks a single point in time. Complexity runs across a chain, and you can't govern a chain with a stack of one-time approvals any more than you can call a diet successful because you had a vegetable once. So where does it actually break down? Permissions creep first. Somebody builds an agent to summarize support tickets, grants it broad API access because scoping it properly would've taken another sprint, and forgets about it. Six months later, that same agent h
Socure hits $5.2bn valuation on investment; buys AI fraud platform Fravity
Socure, the identity and risk intelligence infrastructure platform, has raised funding from investors including Goldman Sachs Alternatives and Wells Fargo at a $5.2 billion valuation. The firm has also acquired Fravity, an agentic platform that automates fraud, risk, and compliance operations.