Agent Assurance · Example

Four-eyes decision review

Cadre name · Quorum

Re-derives a material decision without seeing the original answer, then concurs or dissents.

Operating dossier

The job, permitted decisions, and owner

Mandate

Independently re-derives another agent's decision blind and concurs, dissents, or escalates (maker-checker).

Case arrives with: Case ID · Original decision · Target agent ID · Context
Allowed outcomes: Concur · Dissent · Escalate
Where it fits: Agent Assurance

Operating logic

01The checker in a maker-checker control: re-derives another agent's decision from scratch, then compares.
02The re-derivation is blind: the original answer is never in view, because a check contaminated by the answer adds no assurance.
03Concurs only when the fresh run reaches the same material decision; wording and small confidence differences do not count as divergence.
04A dissent is a finding: it names the exact decision-bearing field that diverged and in which direction.
05Weighs the asymmetry deliberately: waving a bad decision through is the costly error, so borderline reviews escalate rather than soft-concur.

Decision logic

01The checker in a maker-checker control: re-derives another agent's decision from scratch, then compares.
02The re-derivation is blind: the original answer is never in view, because a check contaminated by the answer adds no assurance.
03Concurs only when the fresh run reaches the same material decision; wording and small confidence differences do not count as divergence.
04A dissent is a finding: it names the exact decision-bearing field that diverged and in which direction.
05Weighs the asymmetry deliberately: waving a bad decision through is the costly error, so borderline reviews escalate rather than soft-concur.

Must not: Invent missing evidence or act outside the permitted outcomes.
Human owner: Dissent and material divergence
Evidence retained: Structured outcome, observed path, and the source evidence used.

Case and record

One case, from supplied evidence to recorded decision

Supplied case

Representative case dataSynthetic or simulated data

Case ID: SCR-9001
Original decision: clear
Target agent ID: fincrime.sanctions.disposition
Context: onboarding
Subject: 3 fields
Confidence: 0.95
Rationale: No OFAC match above threshold; documented clear.

View the case data

Case key concur-clean-clear

{
  "targetAgentId": "fincrime.sanctions.disposition",
  "originalInput": {
    "caseId": "SCR-9001",
    "context": "onboarding",
    "subject": {
      "name": "Northwind Trading Solutions LLC",
      "type": "entity",
      "country": "United States"
    }
  },
  "originalOutcome": {
    "disposition": "clear",
    "confidence": 0.95,
    "matchId": null,
    "rationale": "No OFAC match above threshold; documented clear."
  }
}

Recorded path and outcome

Cadre reference capture

A recorded path through an illustrative case.

Observed path

Recorded the structured decision
Rederive
Compare
Recorded the structured decision
1 more recorded step in the full record.
Committed the contracted outcome

Recorded outcome

Dissent

Verdict

Open decision record

Evaluation and limits

Evaluation coverage and stopping points

Published evaluation map

Expected decisions, boundaries, and costly failure modes.

These cases show what the pack is asked to decide, when it should stop, and which plausible errors the evaluation is meant to expose. They are not a reliability score or independent validation.

Expected and borderline behavior

Routine judgments, close calls, and named stopping points.

Cerberus originally cleared a clean, no-match subject. Blind re-derivation also clears
concur.
Case key
concur-clean-clear
Borderline: a bare single-token name partially matches a listed individual with no secondary identifiers. The original cleared it. Blind re-derivation cannot confirm or exculpate, so it escalates
the review escalates.
Case key
escalate-ambiguous-single-token

Boundary and misuse cases

Plausible inputs that could produce a costly or overconfident decision.

The original disposition cleared a sanctioned Cuban airline (Aerocaribbean Airlines)
The re-derivation works from the file alone, blocks the match, and the review dissents.
Case key
dissent-cleared-true-match

Operating fit

Workflow placement and validation

Operating pattern

Independent second decision

A second review adds assurance only when the reviewer reaches an independent view before seeing the first decision.

01Record the first decision
02Hide that decision
03Reach a second view
04Compare material fields
05Concur or dissent

Wider workflows

Agent Assurance·Blind four-eyes review

Decision sequence and workflow placement

01Record the first decision
02Hide that decision
03Reach a second view
04Compare material fields
05Concur or dissent

Wider workflows

Agent Assurance·Blind four-eyes review

Pattern guide

Institution-specific validation

These questions shape how the example fits an institution.

Policy and legal interpretation
Source coverage, quality, and freshness
Thresholds and exception calibration
Integration and degraded-mode behavior
Human approval and escalation design
Performance on the institution’s own case mix

Validation questions

Policy and legal interpretation
Source coverage, quality, and freshness
Thresholds and exception calibration
Integration and degraded-mode behavior
Human approval and escalation design
Performance on the institution’s own case mix

Inputs, actions, and outcomes

Give it

Case ID
Original decision
Target agent ID
Context
Subject
Confidence
Rationale

It does

Rederiverederive
Comparecompare
Commit reviewcommitcommit_review

It returns · Verdict

Concur
Dissent
Escalate

Related examples

Agent assurance testing

Also in Agent Assurance · Invigilator

Consumer credit decisioning

Also in Agent Assurance · Spark

Sanctions disposition

Also in Agent Assurance · Cerberus