Before an AI agent can move money, access customer data or change business systems, understand what it can reach, which authority applies, and what the evidence actually establishes.
HAIEC connects consequential AI action paths, policy, permissions, controls and available observations into deterministic, evidence-backed assurance.
One consequential system. One decision to defend. Honest proof gaps.
You do not need to know HAIEC's terminology. Choose the problem your team is trying to solve.
Three inputs match your situation with existing HAIEC evidence and the right next step.
Browse practical problems teams raise in AI architecture review, security sign-off, vendor diligence and audit preparation.
Unblock a stalled AI pilot with a scoped, evidence-backed production-readiness review.
Make a defensible release decision from actual action paths, authority and applicable evidence.
Map supported paths from an agent through tools and APIs to business operations and resources.
Compare tool capabilities, relevant authority and actual grants where source evidence is available.
Determine whether the business choice was fixed by policy or legitimately delegated to the agent.
Inspect tool exposure, server-side checks, privilege boundaries and source-linked action paths.
Follow unsafe input-to-tool paths and identify where actual server authorization is required.
Examine trusted tenant-to-principal binding and protected resource access, not just a tenant parameter.
Separate available code paths and permissions from qualified action-correlated observations.
Explore an illustrative supplier-payment change. Each evidence dimension answers a separate question. Adding a fact does not automatically change the other facts.
A repository shows an agent-to-tool-to-API path. Does that mean the action was approved, permitted, performed or completed?
Training switches represent hypothetical qualified sources, not a live HAIEC scan or assessment.
Five independent evidence planes. No plane inherits another's proof.
What consequential operations does qualified source analysis show a handler or tool chain can reach?
A defensible decision is.
Security scanning, identity systems, policy workflows and monitoring each contribute valuable facts. The assurance challenge is understanding those facts together without overstating what any one of them proves.
Find source vulnerabilities, risky patterns and tested behaviors.
Question: What was found or exercised?
Show what a specific authenticated identity is technically granted.
Question: Who can invoke which resource?
Define approved intent, responsibilities and decision limits.
Question: What should be allowed?
Show activity observed by qualified, bounded telemetry sources.
Question: What was seen within coverage?
Qualified source evidence contributes to an accountable HAIEC assurance decision. Four evidence families: security, access, governance and runtime, connect to a bounded source-qualified action assurance report. Missing inputs are disclosed as gaps rather than converted into passes.
The practical difference: HAIEC connects available evidence to consequential action and authority questions. It can surface meaningful source-backed findings early while explicitly recording what still requires policy, IAM, telemetry or target-side verification.
HAIEC's public Kestrel assurance example makes an important distinction: the source-backed action paths are established within a frozen evaluation, but that does not prove runtime execution or universal permission.
Sanitized current-generated example from an evaluated public repository, not a live production transaction.
Supported code-capable action paths in the reported evaluated source boundary.
Exact policy authorization, effective runtime grants and actual observed execution were not established by the cited sample.
A decision packet, not a vague confidence badge.
Actual deliverables depend on the evaluated system, available sources, engagement scope and eligible product capability.
Start with one protected action: what it can reach, which source demonstrates authority, and which evidence would change the decision.
Build a one-page review brief ↗Want the decision practice first? Run the Executive Decision Workshop ↗
Know which actions are reachable, which privileged paths matter and what the available evidence supports.
Continue ↗Resolve launch blockers, evaluate changed tool paths and define one defensible release decision.
Continue ↗Inspect source provenance, scope, exclusions, control states and evidence needs.
Continue ↗Assess what a vendor agent can access and change beyond its security questionnaire.
Continue ↗Connect source findings, MCP tools and consequential endpoints without overstating an exploit.
Continue ↗Separate action capability, alerts, actual observations and independently witnessed target effects.
Continue ↗Agent-initiated transfers, approval thresholds and payment choice evidence.
Sensitive-data access, patient workflow boundaries and qualified audit evidence.
AI tool paths that reach ERP, MES, purchase orders and supplier decisions.
Agent actions affecting OSS/BSS, network resources and policy-controlled changes.
AI can guide or automate workflow steps, but the canonical HAIEC assurance conclusion is based on deterministic evaluation of qualified evidence. An AI model opinion is not substituted for missing policy, IAM, source or runtime facts.
Those tools supply important but different evidence. HAIEC helps connect qualified source, permission, policy and observed facts to the consequential actions an agent can reach. It complements, rather than replaces, existing enterprise systems.
HAIEC can support a bounded release review with findings, exclusions and required evidence. Neither a favorable assurance disposition nor a verified receipt is blanket safety certification or human deployment approval.
Source analysis can still establish technical paths and meaningful first findings. Runtime behavior and target effect remain unassessed until qualified sources exist.
Do not assume universal native enforcement. Customer-specific wiring, authorized intervention, dispatch and independent target-side proof determine whether a safeguard actually acted.
An evaluation can begin with the permitted integration surface and documented sources. Source reachability and internal vendor authority remain unassessed where access is not available.
No. HAIEC can supply scoped technical evidence and framework context. Professional auditors and accountable organizations determine applicable obligations, approvals and any certifications.
Every question remains readable without JavaScript. Use the interactive catalog above to search, filter and match.
Unblock a stalled AI pilot with a scoped, evidence-backed production-readiness review.
For CTO / AI platform owner. Evidence boundary: Production go/no-go and proof gaps.
Make a defensible release decision from actual action paths, authority and applicable evidence.
For CISO / engineering lead. Evidence boundary: Bounded assurance, not guaranteed go-live.
Document what was assessed, what remains unresolved and who owns the next decision.
For Security architect / platform. Evidence boundary: Separate U5 verdict from human deployment approval.
Move beyond model demos to a review of consequential actions, controls and missing proof.
For CIO / innovation lead. Evidence boundary: Scoping before production.
Compare source versions and evidence boundaries before relying on an earlier evaluation.
For Engineering director. Evidence boundary: Version/source comparability required.
Give architecture, security and business owners a shared source-backed decision basis.
For Enterprise architect. Evidence boundary: Evidence is limited to scoped system.
Map supported paths from an agent through tools and APIs to business operations and resources.
For CISO / AppSec / platform. Evidence boundary: Code reachable does not prove execution.
Compare tool capabilities, relevant authority and actual grants where source evidence is available.
For IAM / Security. Evidence boundary: Grant and code are distinct.
Determine whether the business choice was fixed by policy or legitimately delegated to the agent.
For Risk / architecture / security. Evidence boundary: DAI may be source-dependent.
Expose relevant mismatches between approved boundaries, effective grants and source capability.
For IAM / CISO. Evidence boundary: Do not infer effective grants from code.
Review action-bound approval evidence and the actual mediation boundary for material decisions.
For GRC / operations. Evidence boundary: Human decision != native target enforcement.
Trace parent-child authority continuity and clarify unresolved actor and scope joins.
For Agent architect. Evidence boundary: Full identity chain may require connected sources.
See supported agent, tool, credential and resource relationships and the consequences they enable.
For AI platform / security. Evidence boundary: Supported reach only, unknown paths remain unknown.
Inspect tool exposure, server-side checks, privilege boundaries and source-linked action paths.
For AI AppSec / developers. Evidence boundary: Safe scoped test and access rights required.
Follow unsafe input-to-tool paths and identify where actual server authorization is required.
For AppSec. Evidence boundary: Risk path is not necessarily exploited.
Examine trusted tenant-to-principal binding and protected resource access, not just a tenant parameter.
For SaaS CISO / architect. Evidence boundary: Cross-tenant result requires qualified evidence.
Map protected retrieval, response audience and egress paths with precise source limitations.
For Data security / developer. Evidence boundary: Actual exfiltration requires observed proof.
Review which privileged actions are technically reachable and whether server-side restrictions apply.
For API security / AppSec. Evidence boundary: Guard configuration is not verified enforcement.
Separate raw rule matches, source-qualified security findings, path reachability and target effects.
For AppSec / security reviewer. Evidence boundary: Scan coverage and source semantics matter.
Separate available code paths and permissions from qualified action-correlated observations.
For SOC / AI platform. Evidence boundary: Runtime telemetry conditional.
Check each connected runtime source's freshness, scope and coverage before making a monitoring claim.
For SOC / operations. Evidence boundary: No blanket 24x7 coverage promise.
Distinguish policy decision, dispatch, provider acknowledgment and independently witnessed target outcome.
For CISO / operations. Evidence boundary: Customer-native PEP integration may be missing.
Assess which stopping or containment controls are actually wired and what target-side evidence is available.
For Incident commander. Evidence boundary: Do not promise universal kill switch.
Correlate qualified alerts, actor identity, source findings and missing target witnesses.
For SOC / IR. Evidence boundary: Alert delivery != human acknowledgment.
Document scoped retest, accountable human decision and pending effect reconciliation.
For Operations lead. Evidence boundary: Recovery record != verified external effect.
Create an inspectable report basis with source references, limitations and verification records where issued.
For GRC / internal audit. Evidence boundary: No regulatory approval/certification promise.
Read what the report established, what was not assessed and what a decision receipt actually verifies.
For Auditor / vendor risk. Evidence boundary: Integrity != upstream truth or safety.
Use frozen evaluation and source-bound report outputs to support repeatable evidence review.
For Assurance reviewer. Evidence boundary: Exact schema/run and source scope.
Separate cataloged controls, observed findings, executed tests, human review and target-native effect proof.
For GRC / auditor. Evidence boundary: Not all 45 cataloged controls executed.
Translate consequential paths and source limitations into an accountable executive decision packet.
For CISO / CIO. Evidence boundary: Risk context not numeric certainty.
Identify the smallest additional authoritative source needed to answer an unresolved control or action claim.
For Auditor / technical reviewer. Evidence boundary: Missing != failed.
Ask for source, authority, tool and deployment proof beyond a vendor questionnaire, within accessible evidence.
For TPRM / procurement. Evidence boundary: Vendor access and consent matter.
Assess what a supplier agent could access or change through enterprise APIs and tools.
For Vendor security / CISO. Evidence boundary: Requires access to actual integration configuration.
Share appropriately bounded technical findings and supported verification artifacts with customer reviewers.
For AI SaaS founder / GTM. Evidence boundary: Never issue fake independent certification.
Separate organizational controls attestations from an agent's reachable actions and authorization evidence.
For Procurement / auditor. Evidence boundary: SOC 2 is not source path proof.
Map consequential third-party AI actions and evidence gaps, with a scoped due diligence record.
For TPRM / compliance. Evidence boundary: Black-box vendors cannot claim full source coverage.
Use authorized source and HAIEC MCP-assisted workflow to request deterministic evaluation and inspect outputs.
For AI engineer / DevSecOps. Evidence boundary: Authorized connector/source required.
Compare relevant tool and source paths with their frozen evaluated versions and close new evidence gaps.
For CI security / release manager. Evidence boundary: Not universal automatic PR gate.
Connect qualified outputs to consequential action and authority questions instead of replacing existing tools.
For CISO / CxO. Evidence boundary: Transport/reuse existing systems.
Relate component tests to protected action, delegated choice, identity, policy and observed effect gaps.
For Security engineer. Evidence boundary: Passing tests are bounded.
Review recipient/amount choice, applicable authority, effective access and observed payment effect separately.
For Financial services / fintech. Evidence boundary: No payment compliance certificate.
Assess access paths and evidence for protected data actions before relying on operational safety claims.
For Health IT / CISO. Evidence boundary: Never claim blanket HIPAA certification.
Follow procurement, supplier and manufacturing system write paths with qualified source and authority checks.
For Manufacturing security / plant IT. Evidence boundary: Demo vs actual plant effects distinct.
Investigate OSS/BSS and network control paths, qualified permissions and resulting evidence.
For Telco security / network engineering. Evidence boundary: No automatic carrier native control.
Examine consequential decisions, delegated authority, source/identity scope and audit artifacts.
For Insurance risk / operations. Evidence boundary: No fair outcome or compliance guarantee.
Qualify applicable assessment and evidence coverage for specific hiring decisions and access paths.
For HR AI governance. Evidence boundary: Do not claim full bias audit from action paths alone.
Prepare a focused discussion.
This local worksheet helps you articulate the business decision. It does not submit a lead, evaluate your system or issue a HAIEC receipt.
Proof boundary: Selecting a use case is not an assessment of your system. Any actual evaluation requires authorization, eligible sources and scope. This page stores no data and makes no network requests beyond links you choose to open.
No enterprise-wide promises. Define the consequential action, identify the qualified sources, and examine what would make a release, vendor or audit decision more defensible.