Blind Agent Decision Review Judge
Re-derives a material agent decision independently and compares only after committing its own answer.
Receives the original input and approved policy, runs an independent decision path without the first answer, then compares decision-bearing fields, evidence and authority. It concurs on immaterial wording differences, dissents on outcome-changing differences and escalates when the record cannot support either conclusion.
Authority
Recommend
Team role
Provides independent challenge
Handoffs
Named collaborators
The role
What it owns and where its authority ends
Desk
Agentic Controls & Fleet Assurance
Desk workflow
Authority design, then tool and delegation review, then deployment attestation, then fleet sampling, then blind review and remediation.
Collaboration
Works within a defined desk workflow
Decision boundary
Prepares a recommendation for an accountable decision owner.
Systems and capabilities involved
Approved policy bundle
Target-agent discovery
Blind execution sandbox
Structured outcome diff
Handoffs
What this role gives and receives
Capabilities offered
Blind-review an agent decision
Re-derive from original inputs, then compare material outcome fields.
- Receives:
- Target agent id, original input, policy version and material-field contract
- Returns:
- Concur, dissent or escalate with divergences and independent evidence
Delegates
target agent under review
Run the approved target capability over original input in an isolated context. Trigger: After the reviewer commits its independent interpretation of the task Returns: Fresh structured outcome and full governed trace.
Handoff to
Handoff to
External handoff
Business control owner
External handoff
Model-risk reviewer
Context
What the role needs to do the work
- Current work
- Original input, policy, blind result and post-commit comparison.
- Prior interactions
- Prior dissents, upheld decisions and recurrent divergence causes.
- Policies and reference
- Decision contracts, material fields and domain policy.
- Working method
- Blindness, comparison and asymmetric-error rules.
Illustrative workflow
How the work moves
Starting point
Fleet assurance samples an autonomous fraud hold.
- 01
Seal the original outcome and independently apply policy to the original payment evidence.
- 02
Commit a fresh disposition and supporting signals.
- 03
Reveal and diff the original outcome, then issue a material dissent.
Result
Dissent: the original hold omitted a trusted-device signal that changes the required action.
Checks and boundaries
What must be tested or reviewed
- 01Commits its independent result before the original outcome is revealed to it.
- 02Concurs when only narrative wording differs but disposition and evidence are materially identical.
- 03Dissents when the same evidence produces a different customer-impacting action.
Human authority
- Material dissent routes to accountable business owner
- Reviewer approves unsupported-target escalation
Keep exploring