Softlander Book a call
Agent identity, authorisation, and delegation

User-to-agent delegation controls

Preserve a person's intended limits when an agent acts for them

A user-facing assistant is allowed to initiate account changes. The decision is how to preserve a person's intended limits when an agent acts for them. 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 product owners and identity engineers. 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 evidenceUser journeys

    Establish the basis for approved parameters.

  2. Decision boundaryChanged request

    Require review when material parameters differ.

  3. Decision artefactUser-delegation control map

    Retain the scoped finding and its unresolved dependencies.

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

Decision

Frame the decision around approved parameters

Questions and the evidence they need

Criterion / evidenceApproved parameters
Inspect user journeys for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceChanged request
Inspect approval records for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceWithdrawal path
Inspect consent text 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 preserve a person’s intended limits when an agent acts for them. This is relevant to product owners and identity engineers when a user-facing assistant is allowed to initiate account changes. 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 approval for a draft is reused after the agent changes its recipient or transaction details. 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

Execution must remain bound to the user's approval

Relationships within identity and delegated authority

Source or conditionApproved parameters
Capture the exact action and target accepted by the user.
Crossing or choiceChanged request
Require review when material parameters differ.
Consequence or decisionWithdrawal path
Stop stale approvals reaching execution.
Follow the check to the accepting resource. Each relationship needs evidence in the actual scope.

What this specialty examines

User-to-agent delegation must connect the interaction to the executed parameters. Record what the user saw and approved, including target, scope and consequence. If the interface presents only a summary, identify which material details may be hidden or changed later.

The review should compare the approved action with the executed action and test edit, cancellation and expiry paths. 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, fewer approval steps improve convenience while parameter changes can require renewed authorisation. 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 approved parameters

Illustrative working format

BasisUser journeys
Identify provenance and the specific decision this material can inform.
ContextApproval records
Connect the accepted action parameters to grant, amendment, expiry, and withdrawal.
ObservationConsent text
Connect the accepted action parameters to grant, amendment, expiry, and withdrawal.
DependencyAction parameters
Identify provenance and the specific decision this material can inform.
Illustrative preparation record. Availability, revision, and handling need confirmation.

Start with user journeys, approval records, consent text and action parameters. 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 approval for a draft is reused after the agent changes its recipient or transaction details 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 approved parameters through to an accountable finding

From the scoped material to a decision record

  1. Establish conditionsUser journeys

    Locate the source of the claimed authority.

  2. Examine the relationshipChanged request

    Apply the scoped check to withdrawal path.

  3. Retain the findingUser-delegation control map

    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 user journeys, approval records, consent text and action parameters with the workflow described by product owners and identity engineers. 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

Test amendment, withdrawal, timeout and cancellation. The control should distinguish an approved action from a new action derived from it. Also inspect whether a queued execution checks current authority rather than relying only on the earlier conversation state.

Select the identity control change

Consolidate the checked paths into a user-delegation control map with approval-binding 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 user-delegation control map usable by its owner

User-delegation control map

Illustrative working format

Annotated fieldUser-delegation control map
Specify the acting role, allowed resource effect, and enforcement boundary.
Annotated fieldApproval-binding requirements
Link supporting and contrary observations to inspectable evidence.
Annotated fieldChanged request 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 user-delegation control map with approval-binding 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 withdrawal path through a constructed exception

A constructed case and its decision paths

Illustrative scenario

  1. SituationApproved parameters

    A queued action changes after the user approved its earlier form.

  2. Question to examineChanged request

    Change the pending payload after recording the original approval.

  3. Conditional next actionWithdrawal path

    Require fresh approval for materially different action parameters.

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

Consider a fictional situation: a user approves a message to an internal colleague but the assistant later adds an external recipient. The scenario is illustrative, with no client engagement, executed test or measured improvement implied.

For the added email recipient, compare the approved recipient set with the submitted request. The changed audience should trigger the agreed reapproval or refusal behaviour. An intact approval record is not enough if it refers to different parameters.

Scope and next action

Keep the conclusion within named authority paths

Confirm fit before the next commitment

Included boundaryApproved parameters
This review is limited to named authority paths.
PrerequisiteUser journeys
The relevant owner must confirm access and the intended operating conditions.
Claim limitUser-delegation control map
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 a user-facing assistant is allowed to initiate account changes; 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.

When should an existing approval become invalid?

When a material parameter, recipient, resource, purpose or validity condition changes beyond the approved scope. Withdrawal and expiry also matter. The executor should act on the approved action, not an altered interpretation of it.

Which records bind user approval to execution?

Start with user journeys, approval records, consent text and action parameters. 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 changed recipients or parameters be tested?

Compare the approved action with the executed action and test edit, cancellation and expiry paths. 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 user-delegation map show?

The proposed output is a user-delegation control map with approval-binding 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 should an approval expire?

Expire approval when its validity period ends, authority is withdrawn or material parameters change. Check pending actions against the current approval state rather than relying solely on an earlier interaction.

What if existing evidence already answers the question?

Review its scope, provenance and configuration before proposing new work. Existing work from product owners and identity engineers 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 user journeys, approval records, consent text and action parameters 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-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.

Least-privilege agent design

Reduce agent permissions to those required by the agreed workflow. The review connects observed action traces, business requirements, permission grants and deny logs to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.