MEMO · TO anyone scoping an agentic AI deployment · RE one candidate task, five criteria

Free tool · TRACE framework

Is this task ready for an AI agent?

Evaluate one candidate task against the five TRACE criteria, Traceability, Reversibility, Acceptance criteria, Compliance and Escalation, before any vendor selection or architecture decision begins. Each criterion is a gate rather than a weight, so a strong average does not pass a task with an untested override. No email required, and nothing you enter leaves your browser.

The five criteria

What each one tests, and what goes wrong when it is missing

  • T

    Traceability of inputs and outputs

    Every input consumed and every output produced can be logged, attributed and audited against its source.

    When this fails. Any erroneous output becomes unattributable. You cannot tell what caused it, cannot correct the root issue, and cannot demonstrate due diligence to anyone who asks.

  • R

    Reversibility and risk tier

    The consequence of an error determines how much oversight is required before any autonomy is granted.

    When this fails. Irreversible errors occur without human review. A single mistaken output in a high-stakes domain can generate costs or harms that no amount of subsequent correction undoes.

  • A

    Acceptance criteria definition

    Success is measurable against something defined before deployment and independent of what the agent itself produces.

    When this fails. You cannot distinguish a performing agent from a malfunctioning one. The first indication of systematic error is typically a downstream complaint rather than a monitoring signal.

  • C

    Compliance and regulatory mapping

    The regulatory regimes and internal approval processes that apply are identified before architecture decisions are made.

    When this fails. The deployment breaches a requirement nobody identified until after go-live. Remediation then means suspension, redesign, or both, at a point where the design is already committed.

  • E

    Escalation and override pathway

    A human can intervene in, override or halt the agent mid-task, and that pathway has actually been tested.

    When this fails. When the agent behaves unexpectedly, no tested mechanism exists to stop it. The time spent building a manual stop while the system is running is the time the damage accumulates in.

Evaluate

Score one task at a time

TRACE evaluates a single candidate task. Running it across a portfolio means running it once per task, which is the point: the answer differs task by task inside the same organisation.

T Traceability of inputs and outputs

Can every input to this task (data, triggers, parameters) be logged, timestamped, and attributed to a specific source?

Can every output this task produces be recorded, attributed, and audited against its source inputs?

Are data provenance controls currently in place for the sources this task relies on?

R Reversibility and risk tier

If this agent produces an erroneous output on this task, what is the worst-case consequence?

A Acceptance criteria definition

Does this task have measurable, pre-agreed success criteria that exist independently of what the agent outputs?

Is there an external ground truth or independent validation method that can confirm whether the agent's output is correct?

C Compliance and regulatory mapping

Have the regulatory regimes (for example the EU AI Act, GDPR, or NIST AI RMF), sector codes, and data protection obligations that apply to this task been identified?

Have applicable internal governance policies and approval processes been mapped before any agent architecture decision?

E Escalation and override pathway

Does a clear, documented mechanism exist for a human operator to intervene in, override, or halt this agent mid-task?

Has this escalation and override pathway been tested in a realistic scenario?

Dr. Jayarethanam Pillai

Before you go

I insisted on the no-email condition, over some internal objection, because a lead-generation form dressed up as a diagnostic is a small dishonesty I did not want attached to a practice with my name on it. These tools score you honestly and tell you where the gap sits, whether or not you ever speak to us afterward. That is closer to how I think a genuine assessment should behave, in a classroom or a boardroom. If the result tells you your organisation is not ready, believe it before you believe anything a vendor tells you next.

Signature, Jayarethanam Pillai