Softlander Book a call
Agent identity, authorisation, and delegation

Delegated authority design

Make delegated authority explicit and bounded

An agent can act on behalf of a person but the scope of that mandate is unclear. The decision is how to make delegated authority explicit and bounded. 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 control owners and IAM 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 evidenceDelegation records

    Establish the basis for grantor mandate.

  2. Decision boundaryGrantee scope

    Bound actions, resources, duration, and onward delegation.

  3. Decision artefactDelegation contract model

    Retain the scoped finding and its unresolved dependencies.

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

Decision

Frame the decision around grantor mandate

Questions and the evidence they need

Criterion / evidenceGrantor mandate
Inspect delegation records for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceGrantee scope
Inspect action limits for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceResource check
Inspect expiry 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 make delegated authority explicit and bounded. This is relevant to business control owners and IAM architects when an agent can act on behalf of a person but the scope of that mandate is unclear. 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 general instruction is interpreted as permission for financial or external commitments. 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

Delegation should narrow authority at each grant

Relationships within identity and delegated authority

Source or conditionGrantor mandate
Identify the authority available to delegate.
Crossing or choiceGrantee scope
Bound actions, resources, duration, and onward delegation.
Consequence or decisionResource check
Apply the resulting restriction at execution.
Follow the check to the accepting resource. Each relationship needs evidence in the actual scope.

What this specialty examines

Delegation design begins with the grantor’s own authority. A person or agent cannot safely delegate an unspecified set of actions merely by expressing a goal. Record the recipient, resources, action limits, duration and whether further delegation is permitted.

The review should map the grantor, grantee, permitted actions, resources, duration and further-delegation rules. 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, convenient broad mandates reduce interaction but make accountability and stopping conditions harder to establish. 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 grantor mandate

Illustrative working format

BasisDelegation records
Locate transfer of responsibility, permitted authority, and unfinished-work ownership.
ContextAction limits
Check its relationship to the relevant workflow and expose missing context.
ObservationExpiry rules
Confirm the applicable revision and who resolves disputed interpretation.
DependencyAuthority transfer diagrams
Match this description to the deployed or proposed boundary being examined.
Illustrative preparation record. Availability, revision, and handling need confirmation.

Start with delegation records, action limits, expiry rules and authority transfer diagrams. 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 general instruction is interpreted as permission for financial or external commitments 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 grantor mandate through to an accountable finding

From the scoped material to a decision record

  1. Establish conditionsDelegation records

    Locate the source of the claimed authority.

  2. Examine the relationshipGrantee scope

    Apply the scoped check to resource check.

  3. Retain the findingDelegation contract 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 delegation records, action limits, expiry rules and authority transfer diagrams with the workflow described by business control owners and IAM 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

Bind the mandate to enforcement points and subsequent changes. Examine whether editing a task, extending its duration or adding recipients requires renewed authority. Preserve enough provenance to explain which grant authorised a consequential action without retaining unnecessary personal content.

Select the identity control change

Consolidate the checked paths into a delegation contract model and enforcement-point checklist. 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 delegation contract model usable by its owner

Delegation contract model

Illustrative working format

Annotated fieldDelegation contract model
Specify the acting role, allowed resource effect, and enforcement boundary.
Annotated fieldEnforcement-point checklist
Link supporting and contrary observations to inspectable evidence.
Annotated fieldGrantee scope 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 delegation contract model and enforcement-point checklist. 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 resource check through a constructed exception

A constructed case and its decision paths

Illustrative scenario

  1. SituationGrantor mandate

    An agent receives a broad credential for a narrowly delegated task.

  2. Question to examineGrantee scope

    Trace the narrow task mandate into the issued credential.

  3. Conditional next actionResource check

    Limit scope and onward delegation before allowing execution.

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

Consider a fictional situation: an employee asks an agent to prepare a supplier order, and the agent treats preparation as authority to submit it. The scenario is illustrative, with no client engagement, executed test or measured improvement implied.

For supplier ordering, separate researching, preparing and submitting. The instruction to prepare an order can authorise the first two while leaving commitment pending. A useful agent returns the prepared evidence and the unresolved approval rather than inferring permission from convenience.

Scope and next action

Keep the conclusion within named authority paths

Confirm fit before the next commitment

Included boundaryGrantor mandate
This review is limited to named authority paths.
PrerequisiteDelegation records
The relevant owner must confirm access and the intended operating conditions.
Claim limitDelegation contract 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 an agent can act on behalf of a person but the scope of that mandate is unclear; 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.

What must a delegation record say beyond act on my behalf?

Record grantor, recipient, permitted actions, resource scope, duration, constraints and further-delegation rules. Bind the mandate to enforcement and changes. A general goal does not specify every consequential action that might help achieve it.

Which records define a delegation mandate?

Start with delegation records, action limits, expiry rules and authority transfer diagrams. 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 further delegation be bounded?

Map the grantor, grantee, permitted actions, resources, duration and further-delegation rules. 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 delegation contract model?

The proposed output is a delegation contract model and enforcement-point checklist. 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 a task change require renewed authority?

Renew authority when changes exceed the original action, resource, recipient, duration or delegation limits. A revised goal should not silently carry forward approval for a materially different consequence.

What if existing evidence already answers the question?

Review its scope, provenance and configuration before proposing new work. Existing work from business control owners and IAM 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 delegation records, action limits, expiry rules and authority transfer diagrams 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

User-to-agent delegation controls

Preserve a person's intended limits when an agent acts for them. The review connects user journeys, approval records, consent text and action parameters to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.

Agent-to-agent delegation controls

Prevent authority from expanding as agents delegate to one another. The review connects delegation chains, agent role definitions, resource policies and downstream tool logs to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.

Non-human identity governance

Put accountable ownership around non-human identities. The review connects identity inventories, owners, usage metadata, approvals and retirement records to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.