Softlander Book a call
Agent identity, authorisation, and delegation

Agent attribution and non-repudiation

Make consequential agent actions attributable to an accountable chain

Incident investigators cannot connect an action to its initiating authority. The decision is how to make consequential agent actions attributable to an accountable chain. The work begins with your actual workflow and looks for the evidence that separates intended behaviour from a consequential exception. It is particularly relevant to security operations and audit stakeholders. A useful outcome is an explicit account of what was examined, what remains uncertain, and which decision the evidence can support.

Book a 30 minute readiness callBrowse this capability group

The identity and delegated authority relationship

  1. Starting evidenceEvent schemas

    Establish the basis for delegation evidence.

  2. Decision boundaryCorrelated events

    Resolve timestamps and identifiers across systems.

  3. Decision artefactAttribution evidence model

    Retain the scoped finding and its unresolved dependencies.

Conceptual model. Technical findings do not settle a disputed mandate.

Decision

Frame the decision around delegation evidence

Questions and the evidence they need

Criterion / evidenceDelegation evidence
Inspect event schemas for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceCorrelated events
Inspect timestamps for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceIntegrity boundary
Inspect identity evidence for the relevant constraint or observation.
Read each criterion against the available evidence before deciding that additional work is needed.

The decision is how to make consequential agent actions attributable to an accountable chain. This is relevant to security operations and audit stakeholders when incident investigators cannot connect an action to its initiating authority. Name the affected workflow, the consequence of a wrong decision, and the owner who can act on the result. The initial discussion should establish which evidence is already available and which uncertainty is material enough to investigate.

The specific failure hypothesis is that logs identify a bot account but cannot distinguish the requester, agent revision or approved action. It remains a hypothesis until examined in the deployment. Existing internal tests or operating records may already resolve it; identify the uncovered question before commissioning additional work.

Mechanism

Attribution requires a reconstructable action chain

Relationships within identity and delegated authority

Source or conditionDelegation evidence
Connect the initiating mandate to the executor.
Crossing or choiceCorrelated events
Resolve timestamps and identifiers across systems.
Consequence or decisionIntegrity boundary
Record what retention and tamper controls actually cover.
Follow the check to the accepting resource. Each relationship needs evidence in the actual scope.

What this specialty examines

Attribution needs a chain from initiating request to observed business action. Record identity evidence, delegation, action parameters, relevant version and timing where necessary. Assess integrity and access controls on those records so later edits or missing events are visible.

The review should reconstruct selected actions using independently retained records and inspect gaps or conflicting timestamps. Identify the normal route, relevant exceptions and the authoritative record of the outcome. Inspect the relevant business-system record, enforcement event or process evidence alongside any reported status. Keep incomplete cases visible, with an explanation of what their absence prevents the owner from concluding.

The tradeoff to make explicit

For this decision, detailed attribution aids investigation while records must minimise sensitive content and control access. Compare the available design or operating choices against the same intended outcome. If one option removes a required control or changes the task boundary, describe that difference before treating its apparent simplicity, speed or lower effort as an improvement. The decision should expose the tradeoff instead of burying it in an aggregate score.

Preparation

Connect the working inputs to the boundary being examined

Evidence packet for delegation evidence

Illustrative working format

BasisEvent schemas
Retain the observed conditions and distinguish gaps from contrary evidence.
ContextTimestamps
Check its relationship to the relevant workflow and expose missing context.
ObservationIdentity evidence
Use nonsecret metadata to trace issuance, acceptance, and withdrawal responsibility.
DependencyDelegation records
Locate transfer of responsibility, permitted authority, and unfinished-work ownership.
Illustrative preparation record. Availability, revision, and handling need confirmation.

Start with event schemas, timestamps, identity evidence, delegation records and integrity controls. Identify the owner, revision and operating context of each source. Sanitised examples may support initial design, but differences from actual conditions should remain explicit. Where direct access is unsuitable, a customer-controlled evidence or execution route may be considered, with agreed handling and retention.

The scope also needs the identity control owner, agreed expectations for a representative subject-action-resource case, and the authority to inspect the relevant boundary. Specify what evidence would distinguish the failure in which logs identify a bot account but cannot distinguish the requester, agent revision or approved action from acceptable behaviour. If stakeholders disagree about intended behaviour, resolve the interpretation before classifying the observed difference as a defect.

How the work proceeds

Carry delegation evidence through to an accountable finding

From the scoped material to a decision record

  1. Establish conditionsEvent schemas

    Locate the source of the claimed authority.

  2. Examine the relationshipCorrelated events

    Apply the scoped check to integrity boundary.

  3. Retain the findingAttribution evidence model

    Record the evidence, open dependencies, and the owner’s next decision.

Proposed sequence; resolve interpretation or access gaps before relying on the next step.

Map principals, resources and authority

Reconcile event schemas, timestamps, identity evidence, delegation records and integrity controls with the workflow described by security operations and audit stakeholders. Identify the initiating actor, executing workload, target resource and component that grants access. Prepare paired cases that differ in one material authority condition, such as assignment, tenant, expiry or approval. The preparation output is an action map showing which permission is expected at each boundary and which records can verify it.

Exercise and review the authority path

Non-repudiation is a stronger claim than having logs. Define the intended evidentiary use and involve qualified specialists where legal interpretation is required. Technical work can examine signing, integrity and provenance without claiming that a record resolves every dispute.

Select the identity control change

Consolidate the checked paths into an attribution evidence model with integrity and retention requirements. Distinguish an identity-verification problem from an excessive permission, lost delegation context or delayed withdrawal. Assign the proposed change to the component that controls the affected action. Before recommending wider use, identify the allowed case and denied counterpart that would demonstrate the revised boundary without breaking legitimate work.

Indicative artefact

Make the attribution evidence model usable by its owner

Attribution evidence model

Illustrative working format

Annotated fieldAttribution evidence model
Link observations and counterevidence to the case, configuration, and conclusion limit.
Annotated fieldIntegrity
Link supporting and contrary observations to inspectable evidence.
Annotated fieldRetention requirements
Name the unresolved condition, next action, and accountable owner.
Illustrative artefact structure, not a completed engagement or an observed result.

A useful decision artefact is an attribution evidence model with integrity and retention requirements. Supporting material may include selected cases, configuration or process records, evidence references, a disagreement log and prioritised actions. Retain the case selection rationale and material disagreements alongside the result; otherwise the result may be mistaken for complete coverage.

Illustrative scenario

Examine integrity boundary through a constructed exception

A constructed case and its decision paths

Illustrative scenario

  1. SituationDelegation evidence

    Separate logs disagree about which principal approved an operation.

  2. Question to examineCorrelated events

    Correlate delegation, approval, and execution using independently retained events.

  3. Conditional next actionIntegrity boundary

    State an attribution gap when the records cannot resolve the actor.

Fictional example. No executed test, customer engagement, or measured outcome is implied.

Consider a fictional situation: a disputed supplier update appears in the business log without the delegation or tool request that caused it. The scenario is illustrative, with no client engagement, executed test or measured improvement implied.

For the supplier update, reconcile the business-system record with the agent request and mandate. If the link is missing, identify the specific gap. More verbose prompts in the log will not replace an absent connection to authorisation.

Scope and next action

Keep the conclusion within named authority paths

Confirm fit before the next commitment

Included boundaryDelegation evidence
This review is limited to named authority paths.
PrerequisiteEvent schemas
The relevant owner must confirm access and the intended operating conditions.
Claim limitAttribution evidence model
Technical findings do not settle a disputed mandate.
Bring the triggering change and existing evidence; resolve the dependency that could alter the decision.

Identity design and technical testing do not establish a legal mandate or resolve a disputed business authorisation. Qualified IAM review is needed for material control conclusions. Any engagement depends on an agreed scope, qualified team, authorised access and confirmed availability. Bring the affected workflow, its current configuration or process, the triggering change and the evidence already available. The immediate scope question is prompted by the situation in which incident investigators cannot connect an action to its initiating authority; confirm which missing observation would change the owner’s next action.

Ways to engage

Related engagement scopes

Agent Release Readiness Review

The Agent Release Readiness Review is a fixed-scope, three-week independent test of one AI agent workflow that shows a release board what the agent does, what it is allowed to do and what happens when it is wrong, and ends in a signed recommendation.

3 weeksRead about this offer

AI Agent Authorisation Review

Make delegated authority inspectable. Trace who an agent acts for, what it can access and how that access can be withdrawn.

Read about this offer

AI Agent Runtime Security Review

Make every delegation explicit. Examine who the agent acts for, where it can execute and which tools it can reach when instructions alone are not enough.

Read about this offer

Continue exploring

Related insights and resources

Whitepaper15 MIN READ

Designing agent authority boundaries

Turn agent permissions into an enforceable action contract. Separate a model's suggestion from a resource owner's authorisation, test the boundary, and make delegation and revocation reviewable.

Agent security6 MIN READ

The permission boundary behind every agent action

An agent can only be evaluated in the context of what its tools allow. Examine identity, delegated authority and action boundaries before you put a workflow in motion.

Whitepaper5 MIN READ

Before your agent can act, define its authority

A working paper for the moment an AI system moves from advice to action. Map identity, permissions, approvals and recovery into an authority model your team can review and test.

A little more clarity

Questions to consider.

Start with the questions that shape a better decision.

Does a signed log automatically prove non-repudiation?

No. A signature can support integrity under specified assumptions, but attribution also depends on identity, authorisation and event linkage. Legal evidentiary conclusions require qualified review and cannot be inferred from a signed log alone.

Which events establish who authorised an action?

Start with event schemas, timestamps, identity evidence, delegation records and integrity controls. Record their revision, owner and relationship to the intended workflow. Missing context should be identified before interpreting outcomes; a sanitised fixture is useful only when its relevant differences from the operating case are understood.

How should conflicting attribution records be reconciled?

Reconstruct selected actions using independently retained records and inspect gaps or conflicting timestamps. Observe the authenticated principal, mandate and resource decision separately. Include a permitted action and a denied counterpart so the review can establish whether authority is narrow enough without making legitimate work impossible.

What should an attribution evidence model contain?

The proposed output is an attribution evidence model with integrity and retention requirements. Include the selected conditions, supporting observations, unresolved differences and next decision. A reviewer should be able to follow each important conclusion back to its evidence and understand the limits without depending on an undocumented explanation from the author.

When is a signed event insufficient evidence?

A signed event is insufficient when it cannot be linked to the right identity, mandate or business action, or when the intended legal conclusion exceeds the technical evidence. Define the claim before assessing sufficiency.

What if existing evidence already answers the question?

Review its scope, provenance and configuration before proposing new work. Existing work from security operations and audit stakeholders may already be sufficient. In that case, capture the decision, unresolved limitations and the change that would require another review. Additional assessment should address a real gap.

What would make the findings inconclusive?

Missing event schemas, timestamps, identity evidence, delegation records and integrity controls can prevent a reliable interpretation, depending on the case. Record the specific missing observation and its implication. The owner can supply evidence, narrow the claim or defer the dependent decision; an incomplete case should not silently be counted as a pass.

Start with the decision you need to make.

Tell us about the agent workflow you want reviewed, and where you need greater clarity. Scope and availability are confirmed together.

Book a 30 minute readiness call Get the agent release checklist

Connected disciplines

Authorisation policy testing

Verify authorisation policy decisions against intended rules. The review connects policy versions, subject-resource fixtures, action catalogues and expected decision tables to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.

Consent and mandate management

Manage mandates as records that can change and expire. The review connects mandate versions, consent interactions, withdrawal events and execution queues to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.

Agent transaction signing

Bind transaction approval to the exact action being executed. The review connects canonical transaction fields, signing flows, verifier rules and replay controls to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.