Delegation correctness testing
Determine whether delegated tasks preserve the intended scope and authority
When one agent delegates work to another, this area becomes relevant. For the multi-agent platform owner, the concern is specific: a delegated worker receives broader instructions or permissions than the original task allowed. The deployment evaluation starts from that consequence and follows the relevant evidence through the customer workflow. Delegation should not silently expand permission. The evaluation should compare the original request, delegated instruction, worker action, and returned result, identifying where responsibility or constraints are lost.
Connect the operating question to inspectable evidence
- Multi-agent platform owner
Owns the bounded decision and the consequence of acting.
- Delegation messages
Defines the starting context for the proposed work.
- Scope preservation
Exposes the first material uncertainty to examine.
- Corrective design findings
Carries unresolved conditions into an accountable next action.
Decision at stake
Determine whether delegated tasks preserve the intended scope and authority
Make the decision explicit
- Multi-agent platform owner
- One agent delegates work to another.
- Decision
- Whether delegated tasks preserve the intended scope and authority.
- Scope preservation
- Use delegation messages to establish the relevant starting condition.
For the multi-agent platform owner, this becomes relevant when one agent delegates work to another. The immediate decision is whether delegated tasks preserve the intended scope and authority. The scope should be narrow enough that the evaluation team can identify a meaningful alternative, including continuing the current approach if the available evidence already supports it.
The practical failure to challenge is that a delegated worker receives broader instructions or permissions than the original task allowed. That concern gives the work a concrete direction: establish what the relevant boundary should do, inspect how it behaves or would operate, and identify the owner of any gap. It should not be diluted into a broad transformation exercise before the specific question has been answered.
Coverage
Examine scope preservation alongside authority transfer limits
Keep the review distinctions visible
- Scope preservation
- Compare the delegated task with the original mandate.
- Authority transfer limits
- Prevent the receiving agent from inheriting broader authority by implication.
- Return criteria
- Require an explicit completion or return condition for the delegated work.
Scope preservation
For this scope, scope preservation should be examined alongside delegation messages. Compare the original request with the delegated task and identify any added, omitted, or weakened constraint. Include a worker that receives incomplete context. The proposed evaluation should verify that delegated work remains useful without silently expanding the objective or treating missing information as permission to improvise.
Authority transfer limits
For this scope, authority transfer limits should be examined alongside agent roles and permissions. Trace which permissions the worker actually receives and uses. Delegating a task does not itself justify broader authority than the initiating user or workflow holds. Tests should examine both instruction boundaries and enforceable permissions, preserving the difference between an attempted action and a completed unauthorised effect.
Return criteria
For this scope, return criteria should be examined alongside expected task boundaries. Define what the worker must return and what the supervisor must verify before accepting it. Include incomplete evidence, partial success, and refusal. A returned statement of completion should not automatically settle whether the delegated task was performed within scope and produced the required result.
Prerequisites
Start with delegation messages
Give each input a specific job
- Delegation messages
- Defines the operating boundary.
- Agent roles and permissions
- Examine authority transfer limits.
- Expected task boundaries
- Shows conditions affecting return criteria.
- Product or platform owner
- Confirm access and a reviewer who can resolve gaps.
The starting material is delegation messages, agent roles and permissions, and expected task boundaries. Review these together rather than assuming one document tells the whole story. A stated rule may differ from a configured behaviour, and a proposed responsibility may not yet have an available owner. Identify those differences before selecting the detailed work.
Participation should include a product or platform decision owner, a technical lead, a data owner, and a competent reviewer for the relevant boundary. The customer should define which information and environments may be used. Synthetic or sanitised examples can support preparation when they preserve the relevant behaviour; if they omit a material dependency, record the limitation and agree how the missing evidence would be obtained.
How the work proceeds
Tie the deployment finding to observable behaviour
Follow the evidence through the work
- Scope preservation
Use delegation messages to define the decision criteria.
- Authority transfer limits
Inspect agent roles and permissions and retain observations that challenge the expected result.
- Return criteria
Use expected task boundaries to identify unresolved conditions and a responsible owner.
- Corrective design findings
Link the recommendation to its evidence, remaining limits and next validation condition.
Compare the scope of the initiating request with the delegated instruction and worker permissions. Include ambiguous delegation, missing constraints, and requests that a worker should reject. The proposed tests should preserve the response contract so successful completion means the requested work was returned without unauthorised scope expansion.
A practical first slice would focus on scope preservation and then follow its consequences into authority transfer limits. Keep return criteria visible as a separate review question rather than assuming it is satisfied by the first result. The evaluation team should record observations, competing explanations, and changes to the original assumptions. A second reviewer can challenge whether the evidence supports the recommendation and whether an apparently successful example omitted the condition that matters most.
Illustrative scenario
Evidence gathering becomes a write: targeted correction
Examine the constructed decision boundary
Illustrative scenario
- Evidence gathering becomes a write
A delegated specialist modifies a record despite receiving a collection task.
- Origin trace
Locate the extra action in delegation, worker interpretation or permissions; inspect supervisor acceptance.
- Targeted correction
Repair the responsible boundary and prevent unauthorised action being rewarded as initiative.
Consider an illustrative situation in which a supervisor asks a specialist to gather evidence but the specialist also modifies a record. This is a constructed example, not a client engagement or an observed Softlander outcome.
For evidence collection that becomes a record modification, an illustrative trace would identify whether the extra action originated in the delegation, worker interpretation, or permission model. The remediation could differ accordingly. The supervisor’s acceptance of the result should also be examined so an unauthorised action is not silently rewarded as helpful initiative.
The useful learning would be the difference between the expected behaviour and the behaviour or responsibility actually demonstrated. If the exercise leaves return criteria unresolved, that should remain a named next step. A recommendation to narrow the scope, improve a prerequisite, or hold the decision can be appropriate when the example exposes a material dependency.
Indicative artefacts
Use corrective design findings to make the next action explicit
Every artefact needs an operating use
Illustrative working format
- Delegation contract review
- Boundary — delegation messages.
- Scope and authority test cases
- Findings about authority transfer limits.
- Corrective design findings
- Action on return criteria.
Indicative outputs include delegation contract review, scope and authority test cases, and corrective design findings. Their form should follow the decision and the customer’s existing operating records. The first should establish the assessed boundary and relevant observations; the second should make material gaps or dependencies inspectable; the third should identify the action, owner, and evidence needed to revisit the decision.
Acceptance should be tested through use: can the responsible owner explain what was examined, identify an unresolved issue, and act on the next step without reconstructing the whole engagement? Findings should preserve counterevidence and limits. A polished document is insufficient if it does not help resolve the customer’s specific question.
Scope and authority
A deployment finding remains bounded to the tested conditions
Keep analytical work separate from decision authority
- Authorised deployment cases and traces
- Can include delegation contract review.
- Product or platform owner
- The customer retains release authority and owns remediation priorities.
- Universal vendor or component assurance
- Cannot be inferred from scope and authority test cases.
The proposed evaluation concerns the named deployment, configuration, cases, and authorised environment. Findings do not certify a component vendor, establish universal safety, or approve release. Unexamined provider paths and specialist questions remain explicit limitations.
Ways to engage
Related engagement scopes
AI Agent Evaluation Evidence Diagnostic
Find the gaps between your release decision and the evidence behind it. Start with one agent workflow and a bounded set of questions.
AI Agent Evaluation Foundation
Turn scattered tests into a repeatable release discipline. Connect the behaviours that matter to datasets, evaluation criteria and evidence your team can maintain.
AI Agent Component Evaluation
Find where agent behaviour breaks down. Follow memory, retrieval and delegation through your workflow, then isolate the components that need attention.
Continue exploring
Related insights and resources
Engineer the harness, not just the prompt
Define the contracts around an agent's decisions: what state it trusts, which actions can execute, how interrupted work resumes, and what evidence an operator needs to recover safely.
What would justify releasing this agent?
Replace a single pass rate with a reviewable chain of requirements, cases, observations and judgements. Distinguish task quality, control failures and uncertainty before increasing an agent's exposure.
The evidence behind the go-live decision
A working paper for leaders who need to explain why an agent workflow is ready for its next release. Includes a proposed evidence-pack structure, decision table and review agenda.