TL;DR
Autonomy sounds like leverage until it isn’t. Badly-designed agents introduce ambiguity, extra work, and risk. THIS cost is mostly operational: longer decision loops, more handoffs, and hidden toil. Before you automate, stress-test for five failure modes, use a simple PM checklist, score agent readiness, and gate rollout with human-in-the-loop controls. This edition is a founder/PM playbook: concrete tests, a scoring rubric, and a 30/60/90 rollout plan you can use this week.
A quick note
Amazon just announced 30,000 layoffs. UPS cut 48,000. Both cited AI as a key driver, and it’s not stopping there.
If you were recently affected and want to pivot into an AI-related role, I want to help. I’m putting together a small effort to connect people with resources, mentors, and companies hiring for AI-skilled roles.
I’ve been in the AI space for 8+ years, worked with ML systems at Meta, founded an AI education non-profit that reached 70,000 people, and now run an AI testing platform where I see firsthand how companies are implementing AI and reshaping their approach to business.
If that sounds useful, you can fill out the form below. I’ll share what I learn as I help people navigate this shift.
Why “autonomy” often becomes hidden drag
Founders imagine agents doing work while humans focus on strategy. Reality check: when an agent is wrong, unclear, or unverifiable, it doesn’t remove work. it moves it. Teams end up with:
Extra verification steps (did the agent actually do it right?)
Confusing partial states (the agent started, the human must finish)
Increasing support tickets and exceptions
New decision meetings to decide who owns edge cases
Autonomy should collapse work. Bad autonomy fragments it.
The five operational failure modes that sneak up on teams
When you evaluate an agent, watch for these predictable traps:
Ambiguous Action Mode — Agent proposes actions without clear preconditions. Humans must interpret and decide.
State Drift — Agent and system disagree on current state (partial writes, retries, idempotency problems).
Evidence Gap — Agent’s claims lack traceable evidence (no logs, no source refs). Humans must audit after the fact.
Failure Cascades — A small error in one step triggers multiple downstream failures (e.g., update user → invalid notification → manual rollback).
Escalation Churn — Agent routes many low-confidence cases to humans, increasing cognitive load and context-switching.
If you see any of these consistently, your “automation” is a tax, not a multiplier.
A practical “PM checklist” before you let an agent act
Don’t ship autonomy without answering these (yes/no) questions. If any are “no,” keep the agent read-only or gated.
Clear success criteria? — Can you define the exact outcomes you expect? (Metric + guardrails)
Reversible or auditable? — Can every action be rolled back or fully audited?
Evidence attached? — Does each action include a verifiable
evidence_ref(source + locator)?Idempotent executor? — Will retries produce the same result, or will they multiply effects?
Precondition checks? — Does the agent require explicit preconditions and verify them before acting?
Conservative default? — Does the agent ask for confirmation on uncertain/high-risk actions?
Human fallback UX? — Is the path for human intervention fast and low-friction?
Monitoring & alerting? — Are there alerts for anomalies and a runbook for common failures?
Rollout plan? — Is there a staged rollout with quantitative gates to expand autonomy?
Cost of being wrong measured? — Do you know the human-hours or customer impact of a single bad action?
If you can’t confidently answer all ten, the agent isn’t ready to act unsupervised.
Agent readiness rubric (score each agent 0–5 per axis)
Use this simple rubric to quantify readiness. Average the axis scores; ≤2 = read-only, 2–3.5 = limited rollout, >3.5 = wider rollout.
Spec clarity (0–5): How precise is the success definition (exact outputs, edge cases)?
Observability (0–5): Are actions logged with evidence and trace IDs?
Recoverability (0–5): Can you undo or reconcile actions easily?
Conservatism (0–5): Does the agent default to safe, non-destructive choices?
Human UX (0–5): Is it fast and obvious for a human to review/override?
Operational cost (0–5): If it fails, how expensive is remediation? (lower cost = higher score)
Test coverage (0–5): Do unit/integration/replay tests exist for common failures?
Metric impact (0–5): Is there a measurable KPI that the agent moves? (positive = higher score)
Example: an agent scores 3.0 average → limited rollout behind gates with human approvals.
Stress tests you should run (non-theoretical, do these)
Before any live write, run the following tests in staging with real-like data:
Ambiguity probe: feed 50 ambiguous inputs and measure % of “asks for clarification” vs “acts.” Goal: clarification rate > 60% for high-risk flows.
Partial fail replay: simulate tool failures mid-plan (timeouts, 500s). Measure orphaned states and cleanup success. Goal: 0 orphaned writes after a retry cycle.
Evidence audit: sample 100 actions and verify evidence refs point to canonical sources. Goal: 100% verifiable evidence.
Chaos burst: run a burst of concurrent requests to check idempotency and rate limits. Goal: no duplicated side-effects.
Human handoff timing: measure median time from agent escalation to human resolution. Goal: < 10 minutes for high-priority escalations.
Productivity delta: A/B test agent vs human on the same set of tasks; track end-to-end time, correct completion rate, and support follow-ups per 100 tasks.
If the agent fails these, it’s adding hidden toil.
Rollout gates — staged deployment you can use today
Gate authority, like feature flags. Example staged plan:
Stage 0 — Read-only (2 weeks): Agent suggests actions in UI only. Measure suggestions accepted/rejected.
Gate A — Human-trigger (4 weeks): Agent drafts action and requires human approval before execution. Track approval rate and edits.
Gate B — Low-risk autonomy (6–8 weeks): Agent acts for low-impact tasks (labels, drafts, notifications). Monitor error/rollback rate.
Gate C — Scoped autonomy (ongoing): Agent allowed for medium-risk actions within strict guardrails (spend caps, quotas). Strong monitoring + revert hooks.
Full autonomy: Only when readiness rubric >3.5 and production metrics show net time saved and reduced human work.
Measure human-hours saved vs human-hours spent fixing escalations — if net is negative, roll back.
Simple KPIs founders should track
Pick 3 and report weekly:
Net time saved per 100 tasks: (human time removed) − (human time spent on escalations/cleanup).
Escalation rate: % of agent actions needing human follow-up.
Unintended side-effect rate: actionable errors per 1000 actions.
Evidence compliance: % of actions with verifiable evidence_refs.
MTTR (agent-caused incidents): median time from detection to remediation.
If Net time saved ≤ 0 after a quarter, pause the agent and iterate.
Quick playbook — what to do if your agent is already live and making things worse
Flip to read-only immediately for the highest-risk flows.
Run a 72-hour audit: sample actions, verify evidence, map failures to root cause.
Triage fixes by severity: rollback, add precondition checks, or improve verification.
Add a human-in-the-loop for ambiguous cases (confidence threshold).
Re-run stress tests in staging and only promote after passing gates.
Communicate to teams: why you paused, what you’ll measure before re-enabling, expected timelines.
Treat the pause like a safety patch, not a product failure.
Real quick examples (two short scenarios)
Scenario A — the “helpful email” agent
Agent auto-sends follow-up emails when certain triggers fire. After rollout, customers report duplicate or incorrect emails because the agent misread a status flag. Cost: support tickets + apologies. Fix: require verification of status flag (deterministic API) and switch to draft+human-approve for 2 weeks.
Scenario B — the “billing reconciler” agent
Agent auto-reconciles small invoices. After a partial timeout, it retried and issued duplicate credits. Cost: manual reversal and customer churn. Fix: introduce idempotency keys, strict retry policy, and a rollback playbook.
Both problems are avoidable with preconditions, evidence, and idempotency.
Communication & governance — who owns autonomy
Product owner: defines success metrics, risk profile, and rollout plan.
Ops/SRE: ensures idempotency, retries, and recoverability.
Support: owns the human fallback path and SLAs for escalations.
Legal/Privacy: approves data access and evidence rules for actions.
Exec sponsor: approves gates and receives weekly metrics.
Autonomy is cross-functional. Ship it that way.
30 / 60 / 90-day checklist (founder-friendly)
Next 7–14 days
Run readiness rubric on all active agents.
Flip highest-risk agents to read-only if score ≤ 2.
Add the Decision Note field to any automation PR (context, preconditions, rollback).
30 days
Implement Stage 0→A rollout for one critical automation that scores > 2.5.
Add evidence_refs to all actions; enforce via validation.
Start the weekly agent metrics dashboard.
60–90 days
Run the full stress-test suite on candidates for Gate B.
Measure net time saved across at least two workflows.
Decide: iterate, expand, or sunset the automation based on data.
Final note
Autonomy should make your team faster, clearer, and more confident. If it doesn’t, it’s creating hidden operational debt. Treat agents like critical infrastructure: define success, test for worst-case behavior, require evidence, and gate rollout with clear metrics.
Ship carefully. Measure honestly. And remember: conservative defaults are a feature, not a failure.
👉 If you found this issue useful, share it with a teammate or founder navigating AI adoption.
And subscribe to AI Ready for weekly lessons on how leaders are making AI real at scale.
Until next time,
Haroon