Path to Trusted Agentic AI
The shift to agentic AI isn't a one-time project. It's iterative. Organizations don't go from zero to fully autonomous agents in a single leap. They need a framework that grows with them.
This is that framework. Three pillars, interdependent, worked in loops.
Three Pillars
Every conversation about agentic AI touches three things. Different stakeholders care about different ones, but none of them works without the other two.
Potential
What can agents actually do for us?
Separate hype from substance. Identify the use cases where agents add real value, not just automation dressed up as AI. Understand what's ready to build now and what's still maturing.
Who cares most: business leaders, product teams, innovation leads
Accountability
Who's responsible when the agent gets it wrong?
Agents make decisions. That changes the compliance picture. EU AI Act risk tiers, governance structures, explainability, audit requirements. Accountability isn't an afterthought you bolt on after launch.
Who cares most: legal, compliance, risk, leadership
Control
How do we keep agents bounded?
Identity, authorization, delegation, permission boundaries, audit trails. The technical infrastructure that makes agents trustworthy. This is where protocols like OAuth, MCP, and A2A come in, and where the agent layer meets your existing stack.
Who cares most: engineering, security, architecture, IT operations
They're Interdependent
The pillars aren't independent tracks you can pick from. They reinforce each other, and skipping one undermines the rest.
Potential without Accountability is reckless adoption. You'll build fast and hit a wall when the first incident happens and nobody can explain what went wrong.
Accountability without Control is governance on paper. Policies that say "agents must operate within scope" mean nothing if the infrastructure can't enforce it.
Control without Potential is security theater. Perfectly locked-down agents that don't solve real problems won't survive the first budget review.
The organizations that get this right work on all three simultaneously. Not sequentially, not in phases. In loops.
It's Iterative
A waterfall approach doesn't work here. Companies aren't all at the same starting point, and the interesting challenges surface mid-engagement, not on a pre-set agenda.
The real pattern is: start where you are, go deep enough to learn something, then loop back with better questions.
A leadership team might start with Potential ("what's possible?"), realize they need Accountability answers before they can greenlight anything, and then discover that Control is what makes the whole thing feasible.
An engineering team might start with Control ("how do we auth this agent?"), then loop back to Potential to validate the use case is even worth securing.
Short loops. Each one delivers something complete. The engagement deepens naturally.
It's the art of focusing on the long run while reaping early fruits. The decisions you make now about how you structure context and information will compound as agents mature. But each step along the way should deliver value on its own.
Where This Comes From
This framework didn't start as a framework. It distilled from writing explainers on the protocols, blog posts on the patterns, and curating the questions that keep coming up. Everything kept organizing around the same three themes.
The writing made the pattern visible. The framework is the pattern, named.
If you want to explore where your organization sits on this path.
Work with me