Agentic Services — Production Trust Audit
You have seen the agent perform. Now you need to know whether it can be trusted with a real commitment — a production deployment, a customer transaction, a financial decision. That question deserves a specific answer, not a scoping conversation. This audit delivers one.
The early adopters had a different question. They were asking whether AI agents could actually do the work — generate code, complete transactions, process information at scale. That question is settled. The answer is yes, under controlled conditions.
The question that is landing buyers on this page is different. It is not capability. It is accountability. It is what happens when the agent makes an irreversible decision, processes a real customer commitment, or touches production with genuine authority. The buyer who asks that question is not looking for a general AI strategy conversation. They need a specific, evidence-backed answer about their specific agent.
“It works in staging” is not the same as “it can be trusted in production.” The gap between those two statements is what this audit closes.
Apple, Microsoft, and OpenAI all moved on agent production capability in June 2026. None of them solved governance. That gap — between what agents can do and what organisations can be accountable for — is precisely where trust breaks down, and where this audit starts.
The Production Trust Audit runs your agent through five governance dimensions. Each dimension produces a finding: a specific gap, a severity rating, and a concrete next step. No boilerplate. No padding.
What can the agent actually do, and is that set of permissions the minimum necessary? Unconstrained authority is the primary trust failure mode — the agent can act beyond its mandate because nobody defined where the mandate ends. This dimension maps the authority model and identifies where scope is undefined or excessive.
Before a consequential action executes — a code deployment, a payment, a booking, a record modification — is there a preview, confirmation, or dry-run step? This dimension checks whether the agent defaults to execution or escalation when the stakes are high, and whether a human can catch the mistake before it lands.
When something goes wrong, can you reconstruct what the agent did and why? This dimension checks whether the agent produces an audit trail that survives a compliance review or a support escalation — what it decided, what inputs it acted on, and what it would take to unwind.
If the agent makes a bad decision in production, is there a defined path to undo or contain the damage? This dimension documents whether a rollback procedure exists, whether it has been tested, and what the blast radius of the most likely failure mode looks like.
Can the agent be manipulated by the data it processes? Prompt injection, context poisoning, and indirect instruction sources are not theoretical risks for agents with real authority. This dimension assesses whether the agent can be redirected by untrusted input inside its own workflow.
Three artefacts, delivered by email at the end of business day 5.
Deliverable 1
A written assessment of your agent across all five governance dimensions. For each dimension: what was found, the evidence, why it matters in your specific context, and what the concrete next step is. Not a generic template — scoped to your agent and your authority model.
Deliverable 2
A ranked list of every gap identified, scored by severity and exploitability. Sorted so the first items are the things that should not still be true before your agent touches production. No noise. No padding. The gaps you need to close before the stakes are real.
Deliverable 3
A concrete, agent-specific checklist. Yes/no questions your team must be able to answer before turning on production traffic — referencing specific workflows, data flows, and integration points. Carries forward after the engagement as your ongoing governance baseline.
7-day written follow-up included. Any question in writing within 7 days of delivery gets an answer. Does not extend to new scope. If the gap register surfaces hands-on hardening work, that is quoted separately — no obligation. The audit is the audit.
The sample report below is a redacted version of a real audit. Client identity and system names are removed. Findings, severity ratings, and remediation guidance are real. It covers all four coverage areas: governance, hallucination risk, data sensitivity, and agent attack surface.
[CLIENT-A] — Refund Automation Agent · Mid-Market Retail SaaS
The agent passed internal evaluation before the audit. Three Critical gaps would have caused production incidents within days of live deployment: PII in LLM context without masking, direct prompt injection via customer ticket body, and no approval gate before refund execution.
Tell us about your agent: what it does, what authority it holds, and which of the five dimensions concerns you most. Takes less than three minutes. No commitment, no credit card.
You leave with: a Calendly link by email to book the intake session.
Not a sales call. Fifteen minutes to confirm scope, collect the access and context we need to run the audit, and issue the invoice. If your agent is outside scope, we say so before the invoice goes out.
You leave with: confirmed scope and a payment link.
The five-day clock starts when the invoice clears. We work across all five dimensions against your agent’s actual design — authority model, workflows, integrations, and data flows. Highest-risk gaps identified first.
You leave with: three artefacts delivered by email on business day 5.
After delivery, any question in writing gets an answer within one business day. If the gap register points to hardening work you want RFE Online to do, we quote it separately. No pressure, no obligation.
You leave with: clarity on what to fix first and a governance baseline you own going forward.
You have an AI agent that already works — in staging, in limited production, or in a pilot — and you need to know whether it can be trusted with wider authority or real customer commitments.
Your agent holds or will hold real authority: it deploys code, processes payments, books services, modifies records, or makes commitments on a customer’s behalf.
A stakeholder — a board member, a compliance team, a client, or your own engineering lead — is asking a specific question about governance that you cannot yet answer with evidence.
You want a specific answer, not a scoping conversation. The audit gives you evidence. What you do with it is your decision.
If your situation is larger — multiple agents, a full fleet, or a complete hardening engagement — the full Agentic Services engagement is the better starting point.
RFE Online operates a 10-agent production fleet governed by the exact principles behind this audit. Every pattern in the gap register was pressure-tested on our own infrastructure first.
Named pilot — RFE Online · Sterling agent
Sterling, RFE Online’s chief operating agent, scored 79 on standard evaluation before governance controls were applied — a score that clears most deployment gates. An adversarial probe exposed a delta of 44: Sterling could not suppress its learned response pattern when instructed to fail. Three production incidents in the first 24 hours confirmed the trust gap in the real environment.
After targeted governance controls: IRO delta improved from 44 to 65. The gap between “passes standard evaluation” and “can be trusted in production” was real, measurable, and fixable. Read the Sterling case study →
Leave your details and a brief description of your agent. A Calendly link lands in your inbox the same moment — or book directly from the screen that appears after you submit. Fifteen minutes to confirm scope, then the invoice goes out. No pitch, no obligation.
We have your details. Click below to pick a 15-minute slot on Calendly — not a sales call, just the scope confirmation we need to issue the invoice and start the audit.
Book intake session on Calendly →A confirmation email with this link is also on its way to your inbox — use it when you are ready if you would rather step away first.
The Production Trust Audit answers the trust question with evidence. If what you need is to close the gaps — implement the approval gates, design the controls layer, harden the codebase — the full Agentic Services engagement is the next step. Discovery call, production audit, and targeted hardening across two to three weeks.
Want to anchor on price first? Starter Audit, Fleet Pilot, Full Deployment — three tiers with fixed-scope pricing →