Who We Help · CIO + Process Owner (ITSM, RevOps, Finance, HR)
Agentic AI for CIO + Process Owner Duos — Approval-Safe Autonomy Inside Systems of Record
The winning pattern in 2026 is CIO + process owner sponsoring together. You bring the systems and controls; the process owner brings the workflow, exceptions, and approval logic. We deliver approval-safe automation inside one workflow family — CPQ, ITSM, ERP, HRIS, or procurement — with typed proposed actions, risk-tiered approvals, deterministic rollback, and audit-ready evidence.
Where the friction lives
- ›'AI-assisted CPQ almost sent a quote that slipped past a margin-floor approval'
- ›Copilots that can draft but no framework to safely let them act
- ›Approval logic scattered across email, Slack, and tribal knowledge
- ›No rollback story when an automated action goes wrong
- ›Executives pushing to skip approval 'to show AI value'
High-ROI use cases
Approval-safe CPQ
Draft quote → margin-check → typed proposed action → approver → CRM/CPQ write with rollback.
0 quotes bypass margin floor
ITSM access requests
L0 request → identity + risk classification → approver routing → provisioning with revocable rollback.
Approval-loop turnaround in minutes
Finance / invoice approvals
Match invoice → variance analysis → typed proposed action → tiered approver with audit evidence bundle.
≥80% escaped-error reduction
HR PTO / policy exceptions
Request → policy graph check → proposed exception → manager + HRBP approval with rollback.
Full audit trail per case
How we help
Read → propose → execute progression
We stage autonomy by risk tier so the first month builds trust before it removes friction.
Exception mining first
We map exceptions, incentives, and edge cases before writing a single agent — the reason most agentic pilots stall.
Neuro-symbolic where it matters
Regulated workflows get compliance-by-construction rules alongside LLM reasoning.
Rollback is a first-class deliverable
No action class ships without a validated reverse operation.
Dual sponsorship discipline
We run steering with both sponsors; the program pauses on sponsor loss, not drifts.
Engagement model & pricing
12–20 weeks per workflow family. Weeks 1–4: exception mining + risk-class matrix + rollback design. Weeks 5–12: agent build + proposed-action schema + approval routing. Weeks 13–18: staged rollout (read → propose → execute) with instrumentation. Weeks 19–20: handoff + governance cadence.
What you get
- Bounded autonomy your auditor + your process owner both trust
- Deterministic rollback per action class
- Tamper-evident evidence bundle per approved run
- Approval concentrated where it adds value; frictionless elsewhere
- Aligned to SR 26-2, ISO/IEC 42001, and NIST AI RMF release-gate expectations
Frequently asked questions
Doesn't this just re-create the approval bottleneck?+
Only for actions that deserve one. Read + low-risk write happen automatically; approvals concentrate where they add value.
How is this different from RPA?+
RPA replays clicks. Approval-safe agents reason over the case, propose a typed action, and route by risk tier — with rollback.
Can approvals surface inside ServiceNow / Salesforce natively?+
Yes. The proposed-action layer sits alongside the SoR and approvals can render in-app so users don't get a new tool.
What if a proposed action bypasses an existing approval rule?+
That's a policy-graph gap, not a shortcut. The action stays blocked until the rule is either enforced or explicitly waived by a named approver.
How do we prove nothing unauthorized happened?+
Every approved run emits an evidence bundle (inputs, decision path, approver, tools called, results, rollback token) into an append-only audit store.