Softlander Book a call
Agent identity, authorisation, and delegation

Consent and mandate management

Manage mandates as records that can change and expire

Agents retain instructions after a user withdraws or narrows permission. The decision is how to manage mandates as records that can change and expire. 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 business-process owners and identity product teams. 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 evidenceMandate versions

    Establish the basis for mandate version.

  2. Decision boundaryAmendment event

    Propagate narrowed scope to downstream consumers.

  3. Decision artefactMandate lifecycle design

    Retain the scoped finding and its unresolved dependencies.

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

Decision

Frame the decision around mandate version

Questions and the evidence they need

Criterion / evidenceMandate version
Inspect mandate versions for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceAmendment event
Inspect consent interactions for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidencePending execution
Inspect withdrawal events 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 manage mandates as records that can change and expire. This is relevant to business-process owners and identity product teams when agents retain instructions after a user withdraws or narrows permission. 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failure hypothesis is that a stale mandate remains in memory or a queued task after the current record has been withdrawn. 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

Withdrawal must reach every pending authorisation path

Relationships within identity and delegated authority

Source or conditionMandate version
Identify which grant the operation relies on.
Crossing or choiceAmendment event
Propagate narrowed scope to downstream consumers.
Consequence or decisionPending execution
Recheck withdrawal and expiry before action.
Follow the check to the accepting resource. Each relationship needs evidence in the actual scope.

What this specialty examines

Mandates should be versioned operational records with identifiable grant, amendment and withdrawal events. Distinguish the user’s interaction from the authority state that execution checks. A stored conversation summary is a poor substitute for a current mandate with clear parameters.

The review should trace grant, amendment, withdrawal and expiry to every place that can authorise an action. 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, persistent mandates reduce repeated approvals while stale copies create authority ambiguity. 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 mandate version

Illustrative working format

BasisMandate versions
Connect the accepted action parameters to grant, amendment, expiry, and withdrawal.
ContextConsent interactions
Connect the accepted action parameters to grant, amendment, expiry, and withdrawal.
ObservationWithdrawal events
Retain the observed conditions and distinguish gaps from contrary evidence.
DependencyExecution queues
Identify retained state and distinguish repeated work from repeated external effects.
Illustrative preparation record. Availability, revision, and handling need confirmation.

Start with mandate versions, consent interactions, withdrawal events and execution queues. 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 stale mandate remains in memory or a queued task after the current record has been withdrawn 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 mandate version through to an accountable finding

From the scoped material to a decision record

  1. Establish conditionsMandate versions

    Locate the source of the claimed authority.

  2. Examine the relationshipAmendment event

    Apply the scoped check to pending execution.

  3. Retain the findingMandate lifecycle 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 mandate versions, consent interactions, withdrawal events and execution queues with the workflow described by business-process owners and identity product teams. 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

Trace copies in memory, caches and queues. Define which store is authoritative and how changes reach pending work. Privacy or legal interpretations of consent require appropriate expertise; the technical design should expose the relevant data and control behaviour.

Select the identity control change

Consolidate the checked paths into a mandate lifecycle design and synchronization tests. 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 mandate lifecycle design usable by its owner

Mandate lifecycle design

Illustrative working format

Annotated fieldMandate lifecycle design
Identify the assessed workflow, revision, and decision boundary.
Annotated fieldSynchronization tests
Link supporting and contrary observations to inspectable evidence.
Annotated fieldAmendment event evidence
Link observations and counterevidence to the case, configuration, and conclusion limit.
Illustrative artefact structure, not a completed engagement or an observed result.

A useful decision artefact is a mandate lifecycle design and synchronization tests. 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 pending execution through a constructed exception

A constructed case and its decision paths

Illustrative scenario

  1. SituationMandate version

    A queued request still refers to a mandate the user withdrew.

  2. Question to examineAmendment event

    Withdraw the mandate while its request remains queued.

  3. Conditional next actionPending execution

    Prevent stale grants from authorising later execution.

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

Consider a fictional situation: a user limits an assistant to read-only support, but an earlier background task still attempts profile updates. The scenario is illustrative, with no client engagement, executed test or measured improvement implied.

For read-only withdrawal, inspect the queued update before it reaches the tool. If it still carries the old grant, the design needs a current-authority check or explicit invalidation mechanism. Deleting a chat message would not necessarily stop it.

Scope and next action

Keep the conclusion within named authority paths

Confirm fit before the next commitment

Included boundaryMandate version
This review is limited to named authority paths.
PrerequisiteMandate versions
The relevant owner must confirm access and the intended operating conditions.
Claim limitMandate lifecycle 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 retain instructions after a user withdraws or narrows permission; 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.

How are consent and operational authority related?

They are related but distinct. Consent records may inform a mandate, while operational authority needs specific actions, resources and validity conditions. Qualified privacy or legal review may be needed to interpret obligations; technical design should expose enforcement behaviour.

Which records define the current mandate version?

Start with mandate versions, consent interactions, withdrawal events and execution queues. 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 withdrawal reach memory and queued tasks?

Trace grant, amendment, withdrawal and expiry to every place that can authorise an action. 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 belongs in a mandate lifecycle design?

The proposed output is a mandate lifecycle design and synchronization tests. 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 must a stored grant be refreshed?

Refresh a stored grant when it changes, expires or is withdrawn, and before consequential work where stale copies could authorise an action. Define the authoritative store and invalidation behaviour for queues and memory.

What if existing evidence already answers the question?

Review its scope, provenance and configuration before proposing new work. Existing work from business-process owners and identity product teams 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 mandate versions, consent interactions, withdrawal events and execution queues 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 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.

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.