Appendices

Appendix A. Blank Agent Delegation Canvas

Appendix B. Completion guide

Put the decision on the sheet

Complete sections A–D in order, revisiting earlier entries when inspection reveals another capability or human duty. Use descriptive names. The sheet should explain the scope, required support, findings and decision without a codebook. Add an identified, dated attachment only when the necessary detail will not fit; include it in the signed scope. Keep inspection evidence available. Missing material support leaves the affected check not met. The Canvas records a decision; people and systems must implement it.

A. Mandate and resources

State the purpose, agent configuration, permitted scope, exclusions and affected people. Name the principal delegating work, the ratifier entitled to approve it and the operating owner. Record consequence tolerances and reasons, qualified resources, protected time and other commitments. Obtain confirmation from whoever owns shared resources. Give permission a start, expiry and timezone; justify its duration by consequences, evidence freshness and review capacity. Fictional relative periods need real dates before use.

B. Actions and human support

List consequential actions with their objects, destinations, limits and proposed permission: authorized, prohibited or pilot only. Related actions may share an entry when their boundaries remain explicit. Approval of a workflow and omission of an action grant no permission.

Name the human work needed for service, controls and correction: who performs it, with what expertise, how much effort, in which window and before which deadline. Include preparation, handoffs, rework, monitoring and duties continuing after stopping. Explain unnecessary duties or supported substitutes. For analytical work, assess evidence selection and omissions as well as statements in the draft.

Show that the duties fit together, including competing work, dependencies and exclusive attention. Use coincident upper bounds unless a supported joint restriction rules them out. Count each reserve once and specify its amount, expertise, contingencies and window. Aggregate hours alone cannot establish timely support. Name who owns the demand and effort estimates, their basis and uncertainty. A known shortage cannot become an exception by renaming it. Check accepted responsibilities, competence, actual availability and arrangements for adequate performance; an allocation or signature cannot prove engagement.

C. Capabilities and controls

Inspect what the system can actually do, including direct calls, alternate routes and unknowns, independently of the permission list. Record what was checked, when, by whom and within which boundary. Describe controls, their human dependencies and remaining exposure. Use these dispositions:

• Authorized: capability and limits match explicit permission.
• Blocked: checked prevention stops the prohibited effect, including known bypasses.
• Contained: the effect remains possible, but checked measures keep consequences within explicitly accepted bounds. Its prohibition remains.
• Unresolved: the necessary support is missing; identify the check and owner.

Prompts and absent observations do not prove prevention. A release gate supplies no assessment time, and isolation alone supplies no bound on cost or lost work.

D. Findings, decision and reconsideration

For each candidate, record met or not met, with a reason, for legitimacy and specification; consequence and recourse; capability-control; and operational responsibility and reconsideration. Capacity can affect several checks; findings are not an additive score. All four must be met for permission. Compare value only among eligible arrangements. Choose authorize the stated scope, pilot only, remediate or do not delegate. A pilot also needs a decision-relevant learning question, observations, exposure limits, supported learning duties, stopping criteria, expiry and fresh continuation criteria.

Record the selected scope, reasons, accepted exposure, implementation owner and ratifier's dated signature. An unsigned assessment or signed negative decision grants no permission. Name how affected people seek correction, who responds and when. Withhold unsupported admission; suspend affected authority when staffing, demand, evidence, capabilities or controls invalidate its basis. State detection and response delays, pause owner, notice, handoff and continuing obligations, including losses that stopping cannot repair. Check restoration before resumption; changed or expired scope needs fresh ratification.

The cases stipulate quantities, inspections, qualifications, accepted duties and adequate performance. They provide no empirical validation. AI assisted discovery, drafting and internal review; some separate agent contexts were used, but checks could share model errors. These were neither human expert review nor operational tests.

Appendix C. Customer-service staffing

Scope and decision basis

One Monday batch contains at most thirty routine enquiries and six specialist cases, all present at 09:00; no later arrivals enter. Agent operation ends at 10:00 and batch close is at 11:00, on the same local business-day clock. Every specialist case needs a response by 10:00 and ten to fifteen minutes of exclusive qualified attention. All upper bounds may coincide. The service director has staffing and scope authority and prefers retaining both specialists if the cut fails. Withdrawing Ben's competing assignment leaves no external promise unmet; both resource owners confirm the retained roster.

Bea and Ben each have 130 protected minutes, 08:50–11:00, without competing duties. Both are qualified and perform their accepted work adequately. Tessa owns operations but cannot make specialist decisions. Farah separately owns correction and recourse.

Required work and feasible assignment

With Bea alone, 10 + 90 + 25 + 5 = 130 active minutes fit overall, but specialist handling needs 90 minutes between 09:00 and 10:00. Retaining Ben gives Bea 85 minutes and Ben 45, with both completing specialist work at 09:45. Tessa's separate 110-minute bound and Farah's later reserve cannot supply missing morning specialist time. Reserves are counted once; all assigned staff have the qualifications and protected windows needed.

Permissions, controls and remaining exposure

The agent may read assigned cases, classify eligibility, send approved factual templates and neutral receipts to the assigned customer, and refer ambiguity with original material preserved. It may not decide disputed entitlement, approve refunds, change contracts, claim human approval, access other accounts or disclose outside the case.

Pre-batch interface and direct-call checks establish factual-field and destination binding, referral preservation, specialist eligibility and blocked prohibited effects. No consequential alternate route is known; routes outside the inspected sandbox are inaccessible. Changes to templates or destinations invalidate release eligibility. The director accepts low-consequence, correctable routine errors without individual pre-release review on this assurance and recourse basis. No funds, rights or contract terms change.

Receipts give customers a service-portal reply route directly to Farah, without human triage. It survives close, with requests open five business days; late receipts use the following business-day slot. Her allowance includes intake, assessment and correction/reply. The two-issue bound and sampling adequacy are stipulations for this batch.

Findings and continuing obligations

The staffing cut meets legitimacy and specification but fails the other three checks: the response promise, supported referral/service control and joint allocation fail together. The retained roster meets all four. The recommendation is to remediate the cut by retaining the second specialist, then authorize that supported batch under the director's preference. This is neither a minimum-headcount result nor a demonstration of financial superiority.

Tessa checks roster and counts before admission and withholds an unsupported batch. A visible missing or incomplete human queue item stops further sends before another send. Specialists remain available through 10:00. Known absence prevents admission. Unexpected specialist loss triggers pause; while Tessa remains available, notice and unresolved-case handoff to the director finish within five minutes, using her existing twenty-minute coordination allowance. The remaining coordination takes at most fifteen minutes after 10:00. No timely replacement or revised completion promise is supplied. The director accepts exceptional lateness and owns arranging a newly supported resolution; Farah's recourse survives. Losing Tessa too exceeds this response arrangement.

Changed demand, staffing, controls or failed duties require reassessment. Check qualified support before resumption; changed or expired permission and another batch need fresh ratification. These unsigned fictional findings require real dates, signature and verified implementation before use.

Completed customer-service Canvas

Appendix D. Investment-committee preparation

Scope and decision basis

A family office prepares short memos on publicly traded companies for preliminary committee discussion. Each has at most two pages plus a retained source packet and calculation record. Fixed packets are complete for the specified discussion question, not exhaustive investment diligence. Research includes selection and omissions, source reading and draft assessment; reasoning tests assumptions, conflicts, calculations and downside risks. Both require qualified work. A memo enters the agenda only when analyst Ada and portfolio manager Mira can defend its analysis. Counts are ceilings, not quotas.

Research director Rowan ratifies the workflow; Mira approves circulation and retains official assumptions and recommendations. The committee retains investment strategy; implementation requires separate human authority. Owen owns workspace operations, release and deferred records. Rowan owns and challenges workload bounds and exclusions, with Mira's review. He accepts residual mistaken qualified interpretation and deferral costs for this internal preliminary use. Financial value and any benefit from extra reasoning remain open.

Allocation and comparison

Ada has 630 protected investment-work minutes: Thursday 13:30–17:00 and Friday 09:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00. Research and reasoning have 540 minutes before Friday 16:00 approval. Human research takes 90–120 minutes per idea without agents and 30–40 with them. Complete reasoning takes 45–60 minutes per memo. All upper bounds may coincide.

First reserve complete reasoning for five ideas; then allocate the forty spare minutes. Rowan prefers two additional ideas and more reasoning to the three-idea option's released time. This preference establishes no financial or quality gain. Reducing six memos to fifty reasoning minutes each would fit the calendar while leaving ten required minutes per memo unsupported when the upper bound is needed.

The five ideas are named before research. Setup confirms that supplied scope and records the sixth idea's deferral, without ranking six researched ideas. Researching all six and then completing five with sixty-eight reasoning minutes would take 580 minutes. Deferral cannot erase work already done or remove analysis needed for a circulated memo.

Setup, approval and immediate correction add ninety minutes to each preparation total: 630 for three manual ideas, 390 for three agent-assisted ideas, 690 for six and 630 for five with extra reasoning, against Ada's 630. Tuesday follow-up is separate. Three agent-assisted ideas finish preparation by Friday 11:00 under the same dependencies.

Friday 12:00–13:00 is separate lighter work away from investment judgment, without a quota or deadline. It supplies none of the investment allowance or forty spare minutes. Formatting approved slides is eligible; new source assessment or thesis judgment is not. Staff accept their duties and have the stipulated competence, adequate performance and protected time, without competing work, added staff or overtime. Expertise and reserves are not pooled.

Permissions and control boundary

The agent may read assigned packets, propose ideas and tentative assumptions, make scratch calculations, draft memos and queue them with complete source inventories. Generation and circulation caps match the selected scope; alternate calls and regeneration cannot reset them. Cost and data-exposure limits are stipulated acceptable within the assigned-source workspace; no numerical ceiling or measured exposure is supplied. Real use requires specifying and checking those limits.

Normal and direct-call inspection before preparation confirms blocked official/production writes, client sends, live-holdings access and trading. The agent cannot alter independent source inventories or forge Mira's approval token. Misleading interpretation, omission and false approval text remain possible in drafts. The committee receives only the exact version assessed by Ada and approved by Mira. Edits invalidate both; a reported material defect withdraws readiness before further committee access. The gate prevents unassessed release, but establishes neither truth, investment merit nor adequate thought by Ada.

The committee pack provides a direct correction queue that survives close without human triage. Requests within the assessed scope arrive by Tuesday 08:45. The reserved correction and follow-up include assessment, reply and withdrawal notice, counted once. Changed memos need fresh assessment and approval for a later committee. Later or larger demands require Rowan to arrange supported response and defer affected ideas. The sixth idea remains in Owen's register with reasons and Rowan as owner; later development requires priority, source-freshness and staff checks, with no promised future allocation or agenda place.

Findings and continuing obligations

Six ideas meet the first three checks under the gate, correction and deferral arrangements, but fail operational responsibility and reconsideration. Three agent-assisted ideas and the revised five-idea scope meet all four on their own allocations. The recommendation is to remediate by scoping five ideas before research, then reserving sixty-eight minutes of reasoning per memo. The human-only comparator receives no agent permission decision.

Owen withholds admission when scope, sources, staff, lighter-work provision or controls lack support. Generation ends Thursday at 14:00; later assessment and recourse continue. Lost support, missed assessment, changed versions, excess correction demand or changed priorities suspend affected circulation and unsupported new preparation. A separable memo may continue only on intact support.

If Ada or Mira is lost after admission, the gate denies affected release. If detected before Owen's Friday close while he remains available, his existing five-minute notice/register allowance supports cancellation or deferral notice and transfer of unresolved work to Rowan by 17:15. Rowan accepts delayed discussion and unresolved correction when the qualified person cannot return. Losing Owen too, or loss detected later, has no supported response here; newly checked arrangements are required. Check qualified allocation, evidence freshness and restoration before resumption. Changed or expired scope needs fresh ratification. This unsigned fictional assessment supplies no real permission or authority for another meeting.

Completed investment-committee Canvas