PortfolioGAP-08

Agent Architecture and Protocol Strategy Artifacts

Human Review and Autonomy Control Simulator

SIMULATEDVerified Jul 2, 2026

Autonomy is not one setting for every workflow. This artifact shows how throughput improves as human review decreases, and where edge case risk begins to exceed what the organization should accept.

Same instrument · three industries pick a use case to reconfigure the run

Prefer to read? The two minute case study · problem → approach → metric → outcome

Problem

Too much review can make automation uneconomic, and too little review can allow high risk edge cases to slip through. The right autonomy level depends on risk tier, impact, reversibility, and the organization's control posture.

Approach

The simulator processes a modeled queue across autonomy levels. It shows how throughput, human load, and edge case exposure change as review requirements loosen.

Why this way

This connects autonomy to operating capacity, risk exposure, customer impact, compliance, and workforce design.

The metric

Edge case coverage versus throughput; the recommended (highest zero slip) level.

The trade-off

More autonomy means more throughput and, eventually, an unreviewed high severity error.

Outcome

The autonomy level to run per risk tier, the most speed that still catches every edge.

L1 · Review all
Recommended: L2, the most autonomy that still catches every edge case.
L1L2L3L4L5
Throughput
100/hr

Items processed

Human review load
20/20

Items sent to a human

Edge cases slipped
0/4

Unreviewed errors

Risk exposure
$0k

Cost of the slips

The queue · ● edge case

L
M
H
L
M
L
H
M
L
M
H
L
M
L
H
M
L
M
H
M
Auto approved Human reviewed Slipped edge case

L1 clears every edge case

Every item reviewed, zero risk, but you're paying for a human on trivial approvals. There's throughput to reclaim.

Autonomy by risk tier · bridges EL-05 / Govern

High risk (EU AI Act)max L1 to L2
Limited / significantmax L3
Minimal / internalmax L4 to L5

The level isn't a global setting, it's set per use case by its risk tier.

If you act on this · the call → expected lift → how you'd measure it

The call

Set autonomy by risk tier and impact, not by automation enthusiasm.

Expected lift · illustrative

Increases throughput while keeping edge case exposure within an acceptable control boundary.

How you'd measure it

Review load, throughput, edge case slip through rate, escalation rate, control exceptions.

Steering committee takeaway: The question is not how much autonomy is possible. The question is how much autonomy is appropriate for the risk tier.

How this is built

Twenty items carry a risk tier and four are edge cases (errors if auto approved). Each level defines a review policy; an edge case slips when it isn't reviewed. Throughput rises with autonomy; exposure = Σ severity of slipped edges. The medium risk edge is engineered to slip exactly one level past the balance point.

Stack: Next.js (static) + shared design system; deterministic client side.

Limitations: this is a simplified queue simulation. Production workflows would require live performance data, risk policy, audit logging, escalation paths, and ongoing exception review.