Softlander Book a call
Agent identity, authorisation, and delegation

Agent transaction signing

Bind transaction approval to the exact action being executed

Agents prepare actions whose parameters may change before submission. The decision is how to bind transaction approval to the exact action being executed. 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 transaction platform owners and security architects. 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 evidenceCanonical transaction fields

    Establish the basis for canonical payload.

  2. Decision boundaryVerifier binding

    Reject altered fields and incorrect signer context.

  3. Decision artefactTransaction integrity design

    Retain the scoped finding and its unresolved dependencies.

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

Decision

Frame the decision around canonical payload

Questions and the evidence they need

Criterion / evidenceCanonical payload
Inspect canonical transaction fields for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceVerifier binding
Inspect signing flows for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceReplay control
Inspect verifier rules 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 bind transaction approval to the exact action being executed. This is relevant to transaction platform owners and security architects when agents prepare actions whose parameters may change before submission. 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 a signature covers a summary while excluding the recipient, amount or destination that determines the consequence. 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

A signature protects only the fields it binds

Relationships within identity and delegated authority

Source or conditionCanonical payload
Define the target, action, and parameters being signed.
Crossing or choiceVerifier binding
Reject altered fields and incorrect signer context.
Consequence or decisionReplay control
Distinguish a fresh request from repeated submission.
Follow the check to the accepting resource. Each relationship needs evidence in the actual scope.

What this specialty examines

Transaction signing should cover the fields that define the business consequence. Specify canonical representation, signer identity, destination, action, relevant values and replay protection. References to mutable content need careful treatment because their meaning can change after approval.

The review should inspect what is signed, how it is canonicalized and whether altered or replayed requests are rejected. 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, strong parameter binding improves integrity while corrections need a controlled reapproval path. 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 canonical payload

Illustrative working format

BasisCanonical transaction fields
Identify provenance and the specific decision this material can inform.
ContextSigning flows
Connect the deployed artefact to its inputs, approval, and verifiable revision.
ObservationVerifier rules
Confirm the applicable revision and who resolves disputed interpretation.
DependencyReplay controls
Identify provenance and the specific decision this material can inform.
Illustrative preparation record. Availability, revision, and handling need confirmation.

Start with canonical transaction fields, signing flows, verifier rules and replay 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 a signature covers a summary while excluding the recipient, amount or destination that determines the consequence 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 canonical payload through to an accountable finding

From the scoped material to a decision record

  1. Establish conditionsCanonical transaction fields

    Locate the source of the claimed authority.

  2. Examine the relationshipVerifier binding

    Apply the scoped check to replay control.

  3. Retain the findingTransaction integrity design

    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 canonical transaction fields, signing flows, verifier rules and replay controls with the workflow described by transaction platform owners and security architects. 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

Verify signatures at the point that commits the action. Test altered parameters, duplicate submission and stale approval using synthetic transactions. A signed request accepted by an intermediary is incomplete evidence if the final executor does not enforce the same binding.

Select the identity control change

Consolidate the checked paths into a transaction integrity design with signing-boundary and verification cases. 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 transaction integrity design usable by its owner

Transaction integrity design

Illustrative working format

Annotated fieldTransaction integrity design
Name the missing evidence, responsible owner, and condition for revisiting the decision.
Annotated fieldSigning-boundary
Link supporting and contrary observations to inspectable evidence.
Annotated fieldVerification cases
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 a transaction integrity design with signing-boundary and verification cases. 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 replay control through a constructed exception

A constructed case and its decision paths

Illustrative scenario

  1. SituationCanonical payload

    A signed request is replayed after its original transaction completed.

  2. Question to examineVerifier binding

    Resubmit the same signed transaction and alter a bound field separately.

  3. Conditional next actionReplay control

    Require both replay protection and payload-integrity checks.

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

Consider a fictional situation: an illustrative order approval signs a document reference, but the document can be edited before execution. The scenario is illustrative, with no client engagement, executed test or measured improvement implied.

For the editable order document, compare signing its reference with binding its reviewed contents. The control needs a way to detect material edits or require reapproval. The intended outcome is integrity of the authorised action, not merely a signature attached somewhere.

Scope and next action

Keep the conclusion within named authority paths

Confirm fit before the next commitment

Included boundaryCanonical payload
This review is limited to named authority paths.
PrerequisiteCanonical transaction fields
The relevant owner must confirm access and the intended operating conditions.
Claim limitTransaction integrity design
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 agents prepare actions whose parameters may change before submission; 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.

Which fields must be bound to a transaction signature?

Bind the fields that determine the consequence, such as action, target, destination and relevant values, together with identity and replay controls. Mutable references require a way to detect changed content or obtain renewed approval.

Which transaction fields determine the signed consequence?

Start with canonical transaction fields, signing flows, verifier rules and replay 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 altered and replayed requests be tested?

Inspect what is signed, how it is canonicalized and whether altered or replayed requests are rejected. 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 a transaction integrity design specify?

The proposed output is a transaction integrity design with signing-boundary and verification cases. 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 does an edit require reapproval?

Reapproval is needed when edits alter a field that determines the authorised consequence or violate the original validity conditions. Bind the executor to the reviewed content so mutable references cannot silently change meaning.

What if existing evidence already answers the question?

Review its scope, provenance and configuration before proposing new work. Existing work from transaction platform owners and security architects 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 canonical transaction fields, signing flows, verifier rules and replay 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

Agent identity architecture

Choose how agents should be identified across business systems. The review connects principal inventories, trust boundaries, account ownership and authentication paths to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.

Identity revocation testing

Verify that withdrawn authority stops future agent action. The review connects revocation events, token caches, queued jobs and downstream permission checks to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.

Agent identity maturity assessment

Prioritise the next improvements in agent identity controls. The review connects identity inventories, architecture diagrams, lifecycle evidence and control-test results to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.