01
The gap
Model and conversation quality can improve while workflow reliability remains unknown across tools, policy, money, time, and recovery.
Flagship research · July 2026
From fluent to reliable.
A practical synthesis of why convincing agent interactions are not enough—and how teams can build evidence for consequential workflow decisions.
View the full research PDF PDF · 16.5 MB
Executive argument
Launch confidence should be earned at the workflow boundary.
The report connects adoption pressure, evaluation limits, local operating context, and evidence design. Quantitative statements retain their original source boundaries; illustrative diagrams are not presented as customer outcomes.
02
The method
Scope one decision, define expected behavior, exercise normal and failure paths, connect observations to consequence, then retest critical fixes.
03
The operating model
Use bounded evidence to support product, engineering, governance, and launch owners without turning the work into an unsupported certification claim.
Inside the report
A printable research artifact with explicit source and claim boundaries.
Market and evidence context
Why adoption, investment, and benchmark results create pressure for more decision-relevant workflow evidence.
Failure anatomy
How language, tool state, policy, ambiguity, recovery, and human handoff interact in consequential agent workflows.
Evaluation architecture
A reusable sequence for scenario design, trace capture, adjudication, remediation, and critical-scenario retest.
Buyer implications
What product, engineering, risk, and procurement teams should ask before treating an agent as launch-ready.