TL;DR
Sanctioned AI agents can create the same portfolio problems as shadow technology: duplicated capabilities, conflicting actions, unmanaged dependencies, excessive token spend, orphaned identities, and operational debt. The answer is not to stop business units from building. It is to require every agent to enter a governed lifecycle that begins before deployment and ends with verified retirement.
CIOs need an enterprise agent registry that records human sponsorship, business purpose, identity, authority ceiling, budget, data classification, dependencies, service level, telemetry, review date, and retirement mechanism. That registry should drive approval, observability, portfolio review, consolidation, and decommissioning across every platform where agents are built.
Introduction
Enterprise AI programs are moving into a predictable second phase.
The first phase was experimentation. Teams built copilots, workflow agents, service assistants, coding agents, research agents, and task-specific automations to prove that the technology could create value. Central IT often encouraged that work because broad experimentation was the fastest way to find useful patterns.
The second phase is portfolio reality.
A finance team has an invoice exception agent. Procurement has another. Shared services has a third. Two service-management groups have separate ticket-triage agents. Several development teams have created coding agents with overlapping repository access. A vendor platform introduces its own embedded agent for a workflow the enterprise already automated elsewhere.
Every agent may be approved. Every builder may have good intentions. The combined estate can still become unmanageable.
The Wall Street Journal reported in May 2026 that companies including Lyft, DaVita, and GitLab were already confronting AI agent proliferation, including duplicate agents performing similar work. That is an important distinction. This is not only a shadow AI problem. Sanctioned adoption can produce sprawl when local approvals are not connected to enterprise inventory, identity, dependency, cost, and lifecycle controls.
The CIO challenge is therefore not simply how to approve agents. It is how to manage a digital workforce portfolio that will continually grow, overlap, change, and eventually need to be consolidated or retired.
The Scenario: Sanctioned Sprawl Is Still Sprawl
Consider a multinational enterprise with several approved agent-building surfaces.
The Microsoft 365 team enables departmental agents. The cloud platform team supports agents on AWS and Google Cloud. Application teams embed agents into customer service, finance, and operations platforms. Developers build code-first agents in internal repositories. Business users create low-code agents for local processes.
None of these channels is inherently wrong. The problem appears when each channel maintains only its own view of the estate.
One registry knows about collaboration agents. Another knows about cloud-native agents. A configuration database records several production services but not their delegated tools. Identity systems show service principals and workload identities without a reliable mapping to business purpose. FinOps can see model consumption but cannot always connect it to a named agent or outcome. Security can detect activity but may not know whether two agents are authorized to update the same records.
The result is a fragmented digital workforce:
- multiple agents perform substantially similar work
- agents act on shared systems without understanding each other’s changes
- shared credentials obscure which agent performed an action
- inactive agents retain data access and tool permissions
- duplicated model calls and retrieval pipelines inflate cost
- local teams depend on agents that central operations does not recognize as services
- original builders move roles while the agent remains active
- retirement becomes risky because upstream and downstream dependencies are unknown
This is portfolio debt. It behaves like application sprawl, service-account sprawl, automation sprawl, and API sprawl at the same time.
Scope and Terminology Guardrails
A useful lifecycle model depends on precise language.
An Agent Is Not Every AI Feature
For this article, an agent is a deployed software actor that can interpret a goal, maintain or retrieve context, select actions, invoke tools or other agents, and produce an observable outcome. A simple model endpoint, static prompt, or isolated summarization feature may belong in the broader AI inventory, but it does not automatically require the same lifecycle depth as an agent that can act.
The control level should follow capability and authority, not the marketing label used by a platform.
Digital Worker Is a Portfolio Metaphor
The phrase digital worker can help executives understand scale, cost, ownership, and lifecycle. It should not imply that an agent is a legal employee, an accountable manager, or an independent decision-maker.
Humans remain accountable for the purpose, authority, operation, and outcomes of the system.
Inventory, Catalog, and Registry Are Different
An inventory answers what exists or has been observed.
A catalog helps builders and consumers discover approved reusable capabilities.
A registry is the authoritative lifecycle record. It contains identity, ownership, classification, state, dependencies, controls, evidence, and retirement information. It should also drive or verify enforcement in connected platforms.
A mature enterprise may use all three, but it should not confuse a searchable list with a governed system of record.
Consolidation Does Not Mean One Agent for Everything
The goal is not to force every business unit onto one universal agent. Some workflows legitimately require different data boundaries, languages, regulations, service levels, or operating contexts.
Consolidation means removing unjustified duplication, extracting reusable capabilities, standardizing common controls, and making deliberate decisions about where variation should remain.
Assumptions Behind the Model
This mental model assumes an enterprise environment with several characteristics:
- agents can be created through code-first, low-code, SaaS, and managed cloud platforms
- some agents can take action, not merely draft or summarize
- identity, model consumption, tools, data, and runtime may be owned by different teams
- platform-native registries will continue to exist
- the enterprise needs central visibility without requiring every agent to run on one platform
- agents will change ownership, versions, authority, dependencies, and cost profiles over time
- some agents will fail to produce enough value and should be retired
The model also assumes that governance must be faster than the unmanaged alternative. If registration takes months, teams will bypass it. The governed path must include self-service templates, automated checks, and risk-based review rather than one heavyweight committee for every use case.
The Enterprise Agent Registry at the Center
By mid-2026, Microsoft, AWS, and Google Cloud had all introduced or expanded agent registry, identity, governance, and lifecycle capabilities. Their implementations differ, but the direction is consistent: enterprises need a durable control plane for discovering agents, assigning identity and ownership, governing access, observing behavior, and managing lifecycle state.
That market convergence should not be interpreted as a requirement to choose one vendor’s registry as the only enterprise system. It is evidence that the control problem is real.
The architecture should allow business units and platforms to keep their native development and runtime experiences while synchronizing governed metadata into an enterprise portfolio view.
The diagram below shows the mental model. What matters is that local creation remains distributed, while lifecycle truth converges into one governed layer.
The registry is valuable only when it changes behavior. It should be connected to provisioning, deployment, identity issuance, policy enforcement, observability, cost attribution, review workflows, and decommissioning. A spreadsheet can start an inventory. It cannot safely operate the lifecycle at enterprise scale.
The Minimum Agent Record
Every registered agent should have enough metadata to answer four questions:
- Why does this agent exist?
- What is it allowed to do?
- Who is accountable for it?
- How will the organization monitor, change, and retire it?
The minimum record should include the following fields.
| Registry field | What it must answer | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Agent ID | Which unique agent is this? | Prevents names from becoming the only identifier. |
| Human sponsor | Who is accountable for business continuation and risk decisions? | Prevents orphaned digital workers. |
| Service or product owner | Who operates the agent and manages changes? | Creates an operational escalation path. |
| Business purpose | Which workflow and outcome justify the agent? | Supports value review and consolidation. |
| Capability description | What tasks can the agent perform? | Enables semantic search before new builds. |
| Lifecycle state | Is it requested, approved, active, deprecated, suspended, or retired? | Makes portfolio status explicit. |
| Agent identity | Which workload identity authenticates the agent? | Supports attribution, revocation, and least privilege. |
| Authority ceiling | Which actions are allowed, approval-gated, or prohibited? | Prevents purpose from being mistaken for permission. |
| Data classification | Which data classes can be read, stored, transformed, or disclosed? | Connects data policy to agent operation. |
| Tool and system access | Which APIs, MCP servers, applications, and environments are reachable? | Defines the execution boundary. |
| Dependencies | Which agents, tools, models, data sources, queues, and services are required? | Makes change and retirement safer. |
| Budget and cost owner | What spend limit applies, and who owns it? | Makes consumption governable. |
| Service level | What availability, latency, recovery, and support expectations apply? | Separates experiments from production services. |
| Telemetry contract | Which logs, traces, metrics, outcomes, and audit records must exist? | Makes behavior and value review possible. |
| Review date | When must purpose, access, risk, cost, and performance be reassessed? | Prevents permanent approval by default. |
| Retirement mechanism | How are execution, access, dependencies, data, and cost removed? | Makes decommissioning a designed capability. |
Registration should happen before production identity and production authority are issued. Otherwise, the registry becomes an after-the-fact documentation exercise.
The Agent Lifecycle
NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework calls for mechanisms to inventory AI systems, perform periodic review, and decommission or phase out systems safely. An enterprise agent lifecycle turns those governance outcomes into enforceable operating stages.
The key design decision is that consolidation and retirement are normal lifecycle states, not exceptional cleanup projects.
Request and Register Before Building
A request should describe the business workflow, users, outcome, data, expected authority, service criticality, and estimated demand. It should not begin with a chosen model or framework.
Registration at this stage creates a durable request ID and triggers capability discovery. Builders should be able to search existing agents, tools, skills, and workflow services by business capability, not only by name or platform.
The first gate is simple:
Does an approved capability already perform most of this work?
If yes, the default options should be reuse, configuration, extension, or contribution to a shared service. A new agent should require a documented reason why those paths do not fit.
Classify the Agent and Its Actions
Classification should cover more than a single high, medium, or low label. At minimum, it should evaluate:
- business criticality
- data classification and residency
- user population and external exposure
- autonomy and approval requirements
- reachable tools and systems
- transaction impact and rollback feasibility
- model and runtime dependency
- financial exposure
- regulatory or contractual obligations
- service-level expectations
A single agent may have several action classes. A service agent might summarize records automatically, draft customer responses, update internal notes within limits, and require approval before changing account status. The registry should capture the authority ceiling and the policy that separates those actions.
Approve the Operating Envelope
Approval should authorize an operating envelope, not grant indefinite permission to do anything related to the stated purpose.
That envelope should define:
- approved users, tenants, regions, and environments
- allowed data classes and retrieval sources
- allowed tools and action types
- human approval points
- rate, concurrency, transaction, and cost limits
- required evidence and retention
- model or provider constraints
- rollback and emergency suspension controls
- review date and expiration conditions
The approval record should be versioned. When the agent gains a new tool, expands to a new data source, changes model family, serves a new business process, or increases authority, the operating envelope has changed and must be reassessed.
Deploy Through Governed Provisioning
Deployment should automatically create or validate the controls defined in the registry record.
A production deployment should not complete unless the agent has a unique identity or an explicitly approved identity pattern, scoped permissions, policy bindings, telemetry, budget attribution, dependency records, an owner, and an emergency stop path.
Low-code and SaaS agents should not be exempt. The provisioning integration may differ, but the lifecycle outcome should be the same.
Observe Business and Technical Behavior
Observation is broader than uptime.
The enterprise needs evidence across five dimensions:
- Behavior: actions selected, tools invoked, policy decisions, approvals, and exceptions
- Outcome: completed tasks, accepted results, rework, errors, and customer or employee impact
- Cost: model consumption, tool charges, platform licenses, retrieval, storage, and support effort
- Reliability: latency, failure rate, retries, queue depth, recovery, and dependency health
- Risk: unusual access, authority violations, data boundary events, policy denials, and incidents
An agent can be technically healthy and still be a poor portfolio asset. It may duplicate a better agent, consume excessive tokens, create rework, or complete a low-value task that should never have been automated.
Review the Portfolio, Not Only the Agent
Periodic review should happen at two levels.
The first is the individual service review: Is the agent still useful, safe, reliable, affordable, and correctly owned?
The second is the portfolio review: Are several agents solving the same capability? Are teams buying overlapping platforms? Are shared tools, retrieval pipelines, or policy components being duplicated? Has one agent become a dependency for many workflows without an appropriate service level?
Quarterly portfolio review is a reasonable starting point for production agents, with more frequent review for high-authority or fast-changing workflows. Event-driven review should also occur after incidents, major model changes, ownership changes, material cost increases, new data access, or significant capability expansion.
Consolidate Deliberately
Consolidation should not begin with a mandate to delete the smaller agent. It should begin with a capability and dependency assessment.
A practical consolidation decision considers:
| Criterion | Question |
|---|---|
| Capability overlap | How much of the workflow is genuinely duplicated? |
| Data boundary | Can one service support the required regional, legal, and business separation? |
| Authority model | Do the agents require different identities, approvals, or transaction limits? |
| Service level | Can the canonical service meet all supported consumers’ reliability needs? |
| Integration cost | Is migration cheaper and safer than continued duplication? |
| Extensibility | Can common logic become a shared skill, tool, or service instead of one large agent? |
| Outcome quality | Which implementation produces better accepted outcomes with less rework? |
| Unit economics | Which option has the lowest total cost per successful business outcome? |
| Reversibility | Can consumers move without creating a hard-to-reverse dependency? |
The best result may be one canonical agent. It may also be a shared capability layer with several domain agents. For example, identity resolution, policy checks, document retrieval, or ticket classification may become common services while business-unit-specific agents retain separate data and approval boundaries.
Consolidation is an architecture exercise, not only a license-reduction exercise.
Retire as a Controlled Technical Change
Retirement should be designed before deployment and executed like a production change.
A planned retirement should include:
- Mark the agent as deprecated and block new consumers.
- Identify upstream callers, downstream tools, schedules, queues, data stores, and human workflows.
- Migrate or remove consumers and verify their new path.
- Drain active runs, pending approvals, and retry queues.
- Disable invocation routes and scheduled triggers.
- Revoke agent identities, delegated grants, secrets, tokens, and certificates.
- Remove tool permissions, network access, and data subscriptions.
- Archive required configuration, evaluations, logs, decisions, and audit evidence.
- Apply data retention and deletion requirements to memory, embeddings, caches, and working state.
- Verify that model, platform, storage, and license costs have stopped.
- Update the registry to retired with the date, approver, evidence location, and residual dependencies.
Emergency suspension is a separate path. It should stop execution and revoke authority quickly without destroying evidence needed for incident response. Planned retirement can be orderly. Emergency containment must be immediate.
The Build, Reuse, Consolidate, or Retire Decision
The registry should support an explicit decision before work proceeds.
| Decision | Use when | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Build new | No approved capability meets the purpose, boundary, authority, or service requirements. | Gap analysis, owner, lifecycle record, cost estimate, and approval. |
| Reuse | An existing agent meets the need without material control changes. | Consumer onboarding, capacity check, access approval, and cost attribution. |
| Extend | A shared agent or capability can support the use case through governed configuration or a modular skill. | Interface contract, regression tests, owner agreement, and version plan. |
| Consolidate | Multiple agents create unjustified overlap, fragmented controls, or poor economics. | Capability map, dependency plan, target architecture, migration, and rollback. |
| Retire | The agent is unused, duplicative, unsafe, uneconomic, unsupported, or no longer aligned to the process. | Dependency clearance, decommissioning runbook, retained evidence, and cost verification. |
| Suspend | Immediate containment is required while ownership, behavior, security, or cost is investigated. | Authorized emergency action, evidence preservation, notification, and recovery decision. |
This decision model prevents the default assumption that every new request deserves a new digital worker.
A Practical Registry Object
The following YAML is a platform-neutral example of the metadata an enterprise registry should hold or federate. It is not a complete security policy. It is the control record that connects business ownership to identity, authority, operations, and retirement.
apiVersion: governance.example/v1
kind: EnterpriseAgentRecord
metadata:
agentId: fin-ap-exception-001
displayName: Accounts Payable Exception Agent
lifecycleState: active
version: 2.3.1
ownership:
humanSponsor: vp-finance-operations
serviceOwner: finance-automation-platform
costCenter: FIN-240
reviewDate: 2026-10-15
purpose:
businessCapability: accounts-payable-exception-management
approvedOutcome: classify and route invoice exceptions
prohibitedOutcomes:
- release-payment
- change-vendor-bank-details
identityAndAuthority:
agentIdentity: agent-fin-ap-exception-001
authorityCeiling: bounded-execute
allowedActions:
- read-invoice-metadata
- classify-exception
- add-internal-case-note
- route-case
approvalRequired:
- change-payment-hold
information:
dataClassification: confidential-financial
retentionClass: finance-operations-standard
allowedRegions:
- us
runtime:
platform: managed-agent-platform
modelTier: approved-standard
monthlyBudgetUsd: 4500
serviceLevel: business-critical-hours
telemetry:
requiredSignals:
- end-to-end-trace
- tool-call-audit
- policy-decision
- cost-per-completed-case
- human-rework-rate
relationships:
upstream:
- invoice-intake-workflow
downstream:
- accounts-payable-case-system
tools:
- invoice-read-api
- case-routing-api
retirement:
mechanism: disable-identity-revoke-grants-drain-queues-archive-evidence
replacementAgentId: null
evidenceRetentionDays: 2555
The fields must be adapted to the enterprise’s identity, data, risk, financial, and service-management systems. Successful implementation means a reviewer can move from this record to the actual identity, policy, deployment, telemetry, cost, and dependency evidence without relying on the original builder’s memory.
What can go wrong is equally important. A registry entry can become false assurance when metadata is manually entered but never reconciled with runtime reality. The platform should compare declared state with observed state and flag missing identities, unregistered tools, unexpected model endpoints, stale owners, inactive agents with live permissions, and costs that cannot be attributed.
Operational Ownership
Agent lifecycle management crosses organizational boundaries. The registry needs a clear ownership model rather than a new central team that becomes accountable for every agent.
| Role | Primary responsibility |
|---|---|
| CIO or executive AI sponsor | Sets portfolio policy, risk tolerance, funding model, and escalation authority. |
| Business sponsor | Owns the business purpose, outcome, continuation decision, and acceptable operating envelope. |
| Agent or service owner | Owns delivery, reliability, versioning, incident response, and lifecycle execution. |
| Enterprise architecture | Defines registry patterns, reuse criteria, interfaces, and consolidation decisions. |
| Platform engineering | Provides paved-road deployment, runtime integration, registry synchronization, and observability. |
| IAM and security | Governs agent identity, privileges, secrets, policy enforcement, suspension, and access review. |
| Data owner | Approves data use, classification, retention, residency, and downstream disclosure. |
| Application and tool owner | Defines safe tool contracts, transaction boundaries, rate limits, and rollback behavior. |
| FinOps or financial owner | Defines budgets, cost attribution, anomaly thresholds, and unit-economics reporting. |
| Risk, compliance, and audit | Defines evidence, review cadence, exception handling, and regulatory mappings. |
Microsoft’s agent identity governance model reinforces an important principle: a human sponsor should remain accountable for an agent’s access and lifecycle, including when the original sponsor changes roles or leaves the organization.
That principle should be platform-independent.
Metrics the CIO Should Review
Counting active agents is useful, but it does not indicate portfolio health. A CIO dashboard should connect inventory, control coverage, duplication, value, and retirement.
| Metric | What it reveals |
|---|---|
| Registry coverage | Percentage of observed agents represented by a current registry record. |
| Sponsor coverage | Percentage of active agents with a valid human sponsor and service owner. |
| Unique identity coverage | Percentage of active agents with attributable, revocable workload identity. |
| Review freshness | Percentage of agents reviewed within their required cadence. |
| Capability overlap rate | Number of agent clusters with materially similar business capabilities. |
| Inactive agents with live access | Retirement and identity-governance debt. |
| Unattributed spend | Model, runtime, or platform cost that cannot be mapped to an agent and owner. |
| Cost per successful outcome | Whether agent economics improve the actual workflow. |
| Human rework rate | Whether output volume is hiding quality and correction cost. |
| Dependency completeness | Percentage of production agents with verified upstream and downstream relationships. |
| Consolidation yield | Cost, complexity, and risk removed through reuse or portfolio rationalization. |
| Retirement lead time | How quickly an agent can be decommissioned without breaking consumers or losing evidence. |
The most dangerous metric is agent count without context. A smaller portfolio is not automatically better, and a larger portfolio is not automatically worse. The goal is an intentional portfolio in which every agent has a justified purpose, bounded authority, observable value, known dependencies, and a working exit path.
Architecture Implications for Multi-Platform Enterprises
Most large enterprises will not have one physical registry.
Microsoft-native agents may appear in Microsoft administration and identity systems. AWS agents may use AWS Agent Registry and AgentCore controls. Google Cloud agents may use Agent Registry, Agent Identity, and Agent Gateway. SaaS platforms will maintain their own catalogs. Code-first agents may be deployed through internal platforms and CI/CD pipelines.
The enterprise architecture should therefore separate two layers:
- Platform registries: authoritative for platform-specific deployment, runtime, identity, version, and policy details
- Enterprise portfolio registry: authoritative for business purpose, ownership, classification, cross-platform dependencies, cost attribution, review, consolidation, and retirement status
Synchronization should be automated through APIs, events, deployment pipelines, identity systems, and runtime discovery. The enterprise layer does not need to copy every low-level field. It needs enough normalized metadata to answer cross-platform governance questions and direct reviewers to the source evidence.
This federated model avoids two bad extremes. It avoids a manual spreadsheet that drifts immediately, and it avoids forcing every team onto one runtime merely to gain central visibility.
A 90-Day Implementation Path
CIOs do not need to wait for a perfect enterprise platform before establishing lifecycle discipline.
Days 0 to 30: Establish the Record
Define the agent taxonomy, minimum registry schema, lifecycle states, owner roles, review cadence, and emergency suspension authority. Inventory production and shared agents across the largest platforms. Require a human sponsor and service owner for every active agent.
Prioritize agents that can write to systems, access confidential data, incur material consumption, or support business-critical workflows.
Days 31 to 60: Connect the Control Points
Integrate agent registration with the highest-volume build and deployment paths. Connect identity, telemetry, cost tags, and deployment state to the registry. Add capability search before build approval. Define risk-based approval paths so low-risk agents can move quickly while higher-authority agents receive deeper review.
Create a dashboard for orphaned ownership, missing identity, stale review, unattributed spend, and incomplete dependencies.
Days 61 to 90: Run the First Portfolio Review
Cluster agents by business capability and identify the first consolidation candidates. Select several unused or low-value agents for retirement. Execute the full decommissioning runbook, including access revocation, dependency validation, data handling, evidence retention, and cost-stop verification.
The purpose of the first 90 days is not to rationalize the entire estate. It is to prove that the organization can register, review, consolidate, suspend, and retire agents as normal operational work.
Common Failure Modes
Several patterns create the appearance of governance without lifecycle control.
Registering Only High-Risk Agents
A risk-based approval process is sensible. A risk-based inventory gap is not. Low-risk agents still create duplication, cost, ownership, and dependency debt. Every agent should be registered, even when its approval path is lightweight.
Treating the Registry as Documentation
If deployment, identity, telemetry, and retirement do not update the record, the registry will drift. Registry state should be reconciled against observed platform state.
Assigning One Shared Identity to Many Agents
A shared service account may simplify connectivity, but it weakens attribution, revocation, cost mapping, and incident containment. Identity should be as granular as the control and evidence model requires.
Reviewing Security but Not Value
An agent can be secure and still be redundant, expensive, unreliable, or operationally unnecessary. Portfolio review must include business outcomes and total workflow cost.
Deprecating Without Retiring
A deprecated agent that still has a schedule, endpoint, identity, token, queue, or license is not retired. Retirement is complete only when execution and authority are removed, dependencies are resolved, evidence is retained, and cost has stopped.
Centralizing Every Build Decision
Central visibility does not require central development. The platform team should provide guardrails, registries, templates, and portfolio controls while domain teams retain responsibility for their workflows and outcomes.
Operational Implications
Agent sprawl changes several familiar IT practices.
Architecture review must include capability reuse and dependency mapping. Identity governance must include non-human lifecycle and sponsor transfer. FinOps must map consumption to named agents and outcomes. Service management must treat production agents as supported services. Application portfolio management must expand to include agents, skills, tools, model dependencies, and embedded vendor capabilities. Incident response must support emergency suspension without destroying evidence. Procurement must understand when a new agent duplicates a capability already funded elsewhere.
This is why the registry cannot belong only to the AI center of excellence. It must connect business portfolio management, architecture, platform engineering, IAM, security, data governance, FinOps, operations, and procurement.
The enterprise does not need fewer agents by default.
It needs fewer unknowns.
Conclusion
The agent sprawl crisis will not be solved by banning local innovation or forcing every digital worker onto one platform. It will be solved by giving distributed creation a shared lifecycle and a durable enterprise record.
Every agent should have a human sponsor, business purpose, identity, authority ceiling, budget, data classification, dependency map, service level, telemetry contract, review date, and retirement mechanism. Those fields should not sit passively in documentation. They should drive approval, provisioning, policy, observability, portfolio review, consolidation, suspension, and retirement.
The most important shift is to treat consolidation and retirement as normal design outcomes. Some requests should reuse an existing agent. Some should extend a shared capability. Some agents should be merged. Some should be suspended. Some should be retired because the workflow changed, the value never appeared, the cost is too high, the risk increased, or a better service now exists.
A digital workforce without lifecycle management becomes another unmanaged technology estate. A governed agent portfolio gives CIOs a way to scale experimentation while preserving accountability, cost control, architectural coherence, and a credible exit path.
This mental model connects directly to the site’s broader agent architecture series. The Agent Blast Radius Model defines how much authority an agent should receive. How to Take an AI Agent from Prototype to Production defines the release gates around that authority. The registry and lifecycle model in this article make those decisions governable across the entire enterprise portfolio.
