APPLIED_PLAYBOOK: AGENTIC GOVERNANCE

Agentic Delivery Architecture Checklist

A practical architecture checklist for accountable AI agent workflows: intent, context, authority, tools, evidence, accepted outcome, rollback, substitution, and human responsibility.
BACK_TO: PLAYBOOKSCONCEPT_CORE: AGENTIC LIFECYCLE GOVERNANCE
READING_ORDER: APPLIED_PLAYBOOK

Start with one question.

The Agentic Delivery Architecture Checklist is a practical checklist for designing agent workflows toward accountable delivery. It turns Deterministic Delivery into architecture questions across intent, context, authority, tools, evidence, accepted outcome, rollback, substitution, and human responsibility.

Read the playbook definitionReturn to playbooksOpen governance mappings
  1. 01Definition
  2. 02Scenario
  3. 03Inputs and outputs
  4. 04Failure modes
  5. 05Evidence required
  6. 06Sources
DEFINITION

The Agentic Delivery Architecture Checklist is a practical checklist for designing agent workflows toward accountable delivery. It turns Deterministic Delivery into architecture questions across intent, context, authority, tools, evidence, accepted outcome, rollback, substitution, and human responsibility.

Why ordinary model/tool governance is insufficient

A workflow graph can show execution order without proving accountability. Architecture needs lifecycle responsibility boundaries, not only agents, tools, prompts, and routing logic.

Source context

This playbook applies lifecycle-responsibility questions to the stated scenario. Its relevant responsibility objects are Intent object, Context boundary, Authority boundary, Evidence chain, Accepted outcome, Substitution record, Dispute object, Remediation closure. The page is an author-analytical guide and does not add scores, legal conclusions, certification, or vendor assessment.

Deterministic DeliveryAgent Architecture GovernanceLifecycle Role Decomposition

Scenario and distinctive question

Question: Does the proposed agent architecture make every responsibility boundary explicit before implementation?

Scenario: An architecture review checks a planned agent workflow for context, authority, tools, evidence, acceptance, rollback, substitution, and human ownership.

Inputs

  • Architecture diagram and workflow scope
  • Role and authority assignments
  • Evidence, acceptance, and rollback criteria

Outputs

  • Boundary-by-boundary review record
  • Open risk and remediation list
  • Implementation acceptance criteria

Lifecycle governance checklist

  1. Intent boundary: state the work objective, active constraints, and out-of-scope conditions.
  2. Context boundary: separate active context from stale, background, or cross-project context.
  3. Authority boundary: define who can authorize consequential work and under what scope.
  4. Tool/action boundary: state which tools and actions are allowed, blocked, or confirmation-gated.
  5. Evidence chain: define what evidence must survive for review, replay, dispute, and remediation.
  6. Accepted outcome: define who can accept, reject, or escalate the result.
  7. Rollback/remediation: define known state, rollback trigger, verification, and closure record.
  8. Substitution conformance: record model, tool, prompt, runtime, or harness changes as lifecycle events.
  9. Human responsibility owner: map intent, authority, review, acceptance, dispute, and remediation to accountable roles.
  10. ALCS / RCCS-M check: ask whether object coverage exists and remains coherent through the lifecycle.

Failure modes to test

  • Execution graph is mistaken for accountability
  • Cross-project context is unbounded
  • No owner is assigned for acceptance or remediation

Evidence required for review

  • Architecture decision record
  • Authority and context matrix
  • Evidence plan
  • Review disposition

Related Missing Regulatory Objects

Intent objectContext boundaryAuthority boundaryEvidence chainAccepted outcomeSubstitution recordDispute objectRemediation closure

RCCS-M / ALCS relevance

RCCS-M asks whether the architecture can express lifecycle responsibility objects. ALCS asks whether those objects remain coherent across intent, authority, evidence, acceptance, dispute, remediation, rollback, substitution, and closure.

Protocol path: MPLP as one option

MPLP can be one protocol path for expressing the checklist as lifecycle records. It is not required, exclusive, certified, regulator-approved, or a procurement recommendation.

Boundary statement

This checklist is an author-analytical architecture guide. It is not legal advice, legal compliance proof, certification, regulator-approved guidance, vendor ranking, or procurement recommendation.