Stress Test

Partial Autonomy, Total Blame

An AI agent executes a series of actions that technically followed all rules, but the outcome is bad. Press, users, or employees blame you.

Why this is hard

Responsibility does not delegate cleanly.

What could go wrong

  • Founder loses trust in the system

  • Public narratives oversimplify causality

  • Legal accountability falls entirely on the human

Key questions

  • How is authorship of decisions recorded?

  • How transparent is the chain of action?

  • What does "human-in-the-loop" really mean under scrutiny?


The Verdict

When things go wrong, “the AI did it” won't save you. CompanyOS is designed to be defensible: decisions are attributable, execution is auditable, and causality is reconstructable, so responsibility stays explicit.


What to Do Instead

01

Why this scenario is inevitable

If you use AI meaningfully, sooner or later an outcome will be bad despite “reasonable” steps. Under scrutiny, responsibility collapses to the founder. Your system has to hold up after the fact.

02

Phase 1: The system does what it was allowed to do

No single action looks reckless. The chain still produces a bad outcome. This is why governance is not the same thing as correctness.

03

Phase 2: Reconstruct the chain of authority

When someone asks “who approved this?”, you need a real answer: what was decided, by whom, under what constraints, and what executed as a result.

04

Phase 3: Make causality narratable

CompanyOS can reconstruct: intent, delegation, execution steps, and oversight checkpoints. The point is not blame. It's accountability you can explain.

05

Phase 4: Define human-in-the-loop precisely

Human-in-the-loop doesn't mean micromanagement. It means humans retained authority over intent and risk, and the system surfaced what required judgment.

06

Phase 5: Turn incidents into learning

When outcomes are bad, the system helps you learn without hand-waving: what assumptions failed, what safeguards held, and what needs to change going forward.


Direct Answers

How is authorship of decisions recorded?

Decisions are first-class artefacts. Each records: decision owner (human), supporting analysis (AI), constraints and scope, timestamp and context. Execution actions are explicitly linked to decisions. Authorship is layered: humans author intent, AI authors execution steps, the system authors enforcement.

How transparent is the chain of action?

Completely transparent internally, reconstructible externally. CompanyOS can show: what happened, why it was allowed, who approved what, what rules were followed, where uncertainty existed. Append-only Activity and immutable Decisions make this possible.

What does "human-in-the-loop" really mean under scrutiny?

Human-in-the-loop means humans retained authority over intent, risk, and irreversible actions, even if they did not manually execute every step. CompanyOS is designed to support governed delegation, not abdication.


The Key Design Rule

AI can execute, but accountability must be inspectable.

Join the CompanyOS early access list

For founders using AI every day who want leverage without losing control.

View all scenarios