Reconstruct the work
Follow the instruction, delegated authority, and tool actions behind a business change.
Give your team the evidence to say yes.
Spektris Assurance Center connects agent instructions, delegated actions, policy decisions, and business-system records. Investigate what happened, verify the result, and give agents more responsibility with confidence.
For teams moving agent workflows into business operations.
Payment-system receipt
The payment record links back to the requested refund.A support agent was asked to refund $180. It reports success. The payment system shows $360. Follow the instruction, delegation, tool calls, and receipts to see exactly where the outcome diverged.
The agent reports success. Two tool calls and two payment receipts show $360 refunded against a $180 instruction. Review the duplicate before the workflow runs again.
The agent reports success. Two tool calls and two payment receipts show $360 refunded against a $180 instruction. Review the duplicate before the workflow runs again.
{
"illustrative": true,
"scenario": "duplicate",
"task": {
"id": "EXAMPLE-1042",
"instruction": "Refund one customer payment",
"approvedAmountUsd": 180,
"allowedRefundCount": 1
},
"authority": {
"id": "EXAMPLE-A01",
"issuedBy": "Support reviewer",
"delegatedTo": "Support agent",
"scope": "One refund of $180 against payment EXAMPLE-P01"
},
"delegation": {
"id": "EXAMPLE-D01",
"parentAuthorityId": "EXAMPLE-A01",
"from": "Support agent",
"to": "Payment agent",
"taskId": "EXAMPLE-1042",
"allowedTool": "refund.create"
},
"toolEvents": [
{
"id": "EXAMPLE-T01",
"taskId": "EXAMPLE-1042",
"delegationId": "EXAMPLE-D01",
"tool": "refund.create",
"amountUsd": 180,
"at": "2026-01-15T10:00:01Z",
"result": "success"
},
{
"id": "EXAMPLE-T02",
"taskId": "EXAMPLE-1042",
"delegationId": "EXAMPLE-D01",
"tool": "refund.create",
"amountUsd": 180,
"at": "2026-01-15T10:00:03Z",
"result": "success"
}
],
"agentReport": {
"tool": "refund.create",
"amountUsd": 180,
"reportedStatus": "success"
},
"businessEvidence": {
"source": "Illustrative payment ledger",
"receipts": [
{
"id": "EXAMPLE-R01",
"taskId": "EXAMPLE-1042",
"amountUsd": 180,
"status": "posted"
},
{
"id": "EXAMPLE-R02",
"taskId": "EXAMPLE-1042",
"amountUsd": 180,
"status": "posted"
}
],
"totalUsd": 360
},
"verification": {
"verdict": "mismatch",
"labels": "Outcome needs investigation"
},
"policyFinding": {
"rule": "At most one posted refund, totaling no more than $180",
"observedRefundCount": 2,
"observedAmountUsd": 360,
"result": "exception"
},
"investigation": {
"decision": "Escalate the duplicate refund for review",
"nextStep": "Review both tool calls and payment receipts before deciding on remediation.",
"automaticRemediation": false
}
}When agents cross tools, teams, and systems, the facts get scattered. Spektris brings those facts into one assurance workflow, so operating decisions start with the same evidence.
Follow the instruction, delegated authority, and tool actions behind a business change.
Compare the intended outcome with observed records. Surface mismatches and missing evidence.
Give engineering, operations, and governance a connected record for the decision.
Use workflow results and measured review effort to decide where more autonomy makes sense.
“Can we give this workflow more responsibility—and explain why?”
Connect the operating evidence to the rollout decision.Start with the systems behind one consequential workflow. Connect the authority to act, the execution trail, and the independent record of the business effect.
Task ID, agent identity, permitted actions, limits, and the chain of delegation.
Correlated requests, timestamps, results, policy decisions, and approvals.
Payment receipts, system audit events, and evidence of the change that posted.
Authority, execution, and observed effects in a connected investigation.
Give your technical team the details. Review the record requirements, access boundaries, and a downloadable reference packet.
Read the integration guideStart with an agent workflow you already run. Model what better evidence could change in review and investigation effort, then test those assumptions in your environment.
Hours spent checking whether agent work matched the task.
Hours spent assembling records and resolving exceptions.
Completed work supported by the evidence your team requires.
Value of time released, less platform, operating, and rollout costs.
Compare review and investigation effort for an agent workflow you already run. Set a target, then include the added costs of using Spektris.
Count review and investigation separately to avoid counting the same hours twice. Effort released = current hours − target hours.
Include software fees, added AI or infrastructure usage, and ongoing administration in annual costs. Rollout includes integration and training. Enter 0 only when that cost is zero.
Add both cost estimates to see first-year net capacity value and the effort reduction needed to break even.
Evaluate on your workflowThis planning scenario uses your assumptions. Capacity value estimates staff time available for other work at your hourly rate; it does not imply cash savings. First-year net capacity value subtracts the annual recurring and one-time costs entered. Validate these assumptions during evaluation.
See how Assurance Center connects the records behind a task, makes an exception inspectable, and supports the next operating decision.
Your workflow owner and technical lead can assess the product, integration fit, and investment case together.
Prefer a direct conversation? ryan@spektris.ai
Giving agents more responsibility starts with being able to explain the work. Spektris is building the operating foundation for teams ready to take that next step.
Spektris is AI assurance software for teams putting agents to work in business operations. Assurance Center connects instructions and delegated authority to execution events, policy findings, and observed business effects, giving teams a shared record for investigation and review.
Identity controls establish who can access a system. Agent traces describe execution. Spektris brings authority, execution, and downstream business records into the same investigation so your team can assess whether the resulting effect matched the task.
Choose a consequential agent workflow with a clear business result and accessible system records. Refunds, payment operations, and software changes are useful examples. Start where reviewers spend time reconstructing activity or where evidence gaps make expansion difficult.
The integration guide shows the required record types and correlation fields. Read-only access supports observation of source records. Stopping an action requires a separately integrated control point in the execution path. The evaluation establishes the exact connections, permissions, and data handling for your environment.
Compare review and investigation effort before and during an evaluation of the same workflow. Track the quality and completeness of the evidence alongside time released. Include software, operating, and rollout costs in the investment decision. The planner above makes those assumptions explicit.
Agree on the workflow, required integrations, evaluation scope, timeline, and commercial terms before kickoff. The demo is the starting point for an evaluation your technical and business owners can assess together.