A governance framework that explicitly separates Allowed Autonomy Levels (AAL), which define the degree of autonomy an AI agent is authorized to exercise given risk, oversight, and accountability considerations, from Autonomous Capability Levels (ACL), which characterize an agent's inherent technical abilities is introduced.
Abstract
As AI systems increasingly exhibit agentic behavior, discussions of autonomy often conflate what systems are technically capable of doing with what they should be permitted to do in practice. This paper introduces a governance framework that explicitly separates Allowed Autonomy Levels (AAL), which define the degree of autonomy an AI agent is authorized to exercise given risk, oversight, and accountability considerations, from Autonomous Capability Levels (ACL), which characterize an agent's inherent technical abilities. We present a structured set of autonomy levels spanning reactive execution, decision support, supervised action, goal-directed autonomy, and delegated operational authority, and describe how control, reversibility, and accountability change as autonomy increases. To operationalize this framework, we propose a risk-aware decision process for assigning allowed autonomy, analyze how risk and accountability evolve across autonomy levels, and demonstrate its application through a deployed enterprise data engineering agent, illustrating how a system assessed at a high capability level can be deliberately constrained to a lower allowed autonomy based on risk, reversibility, and organizational readiness. By distinguishing authorization from capability, this work provides practical guidance for the design, deployment, and governance of Agentic AI systems.
The framework offers managers actionable guidance for deploying agentic AI responsibly and offers regulators a structured basis for balancing innovation with oversight, while extending agency theory and sociotechnical systems theory through a reconceptualisation of agentic AI as a sociotechnical principal-cum-agent.
Mohammad Talha Siddiqui, Usuf Kamal· BIMTECH Business Perspective...· 0 citations
It is argued that agentic AI governance is four problems, not one, each with a mature governing science, and a five-level maturity model with a non-compensatory bottleneck-weighted index and assessment instrument operationalizes CASE as a scientific rather than process maturity model, grounded in production enterprise...
Srinivas Telukunta, Georgios Nektarios Lilis, Lucio Baron· 0 citations
This paper argues that autonomy, opacity, and adaptivity bear on attributability while leaving intact an answerability grounded, through a standard tracing structure, in the deployer’s guidance control over the prior act of delegation.
It is argued that accountable, ethical AI is not a governance overlay applied after deployment but an architectural property that requires encoding ethical commitments as explicit, contestable constraints rather than as emergent properties of trained weights.
L. Medsker, Sumit Virmani· AI and Ethics· 0 citations
The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed digital twins (DTs) from passive simulation models into systems that can support perception, reasoning, planning, and coordination, as well as action, in some settings. However, the integration of agentic AI with DTs creates governance challenges invol...
Ali A. Alnoman, A. Khwaja, A. Anpalagan et al.· Future Internet· 0 citations
Agentic AI can interpret information, plan, make workflow decisions, and use enterprise tools. Yet technical capability does not establish authoritative meaning, legitimate process state, organisational permission, or accountable execution. The challenge is to preserve adaptability while ensuring that consequential act...
B. Jørgensen, Z. Ma· Information· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.