Authority Continuity for Enterprise IT
Change management and access control already exist to stop exactly what an ungoverned AI agent introduces: an action taken outside anyone's actual authority to approve it.
An agent that can open a change request can usually also merge it
Enterprise IT already runs on delegated change and access authority: who can approve an infrastructure change, provision access, authorize cloud spend, or escalate an incident response. Change advisory boards and access reviews exist because an unauthorized change carries real operational cost, not just process overhead.
An AI agent operating inside CI/CD, infrastructure-as-code, or access management doesn't remove that risk. It removes the deliberate slowness that made the risk manageable, since an agent can propose and, without a check, execute a change far faster than any change advisory board was built to review.
The same authority-continuity layer, evaluating your delegation
Your organization already has this authority: it's built into an approval matrix, a sign-off chain, a signing policy. The same Runtime Authority engine evaluates your own Authority Graph and Runtime Policies against every Intent: AI reasons, your organization authorizes, Runtime Authority decides. What changes by industry is whose authority it's evaluating, and what the workflow on either side of it looks like.
Where this shows up in enterprise it
Infrastructure change approval
A change an agent proposes is evaluated against the change authority actually delegated for that system and environment before it's applied.
Access provisioning and deprovisioning
An access grant or revocation an agent initiates is evaluated against the identity and access authority delegated to whoever requested it.
Cloud spend and resource provisioning
A provisioning action with cost implications is evaluated against budget and approval limits before resources are committed.
Incident escalation authority
An escalation or remediation action an agent takes during an incident is evaluated against the specific authority delegated for that severity level.
Governance defines authority. It was never evaluated at the moment of action
A change management policy or access control matrix is written for a human reviewer to apply. It's never been evaluated automatically against an agent proposing the change, because nothing existed to evaluate it between the pull request and the deploy. Runtime Authority's Authority Graph models who actually holds change and access authority, by system and environment; Runtime Policies compile the specific conditions (severity, blast radius, cost) that determine whether an action proceeds or escalates.
Every decision produces evidence the moment it's made, so a post-incident review has an exact record of what was evaluated and why, not a reconstruction from a deploy log and a Slack thread.
The scenarios above illustrate how that evaluation would apply to change, access, and incident actions. They're candidate workflows we're validating with early design partners, not a description of CI/CD or access-management pipelines already running this in production today.
See PayReality evaluate your own enterprise it workflow
Bring an existing approval policy from your organization. We'll show you the decision, in real time, before anything executes.