Jooyeol Kim

Deployment Review Form for Execution-Capable AI Agents

A structured review form for documenting whether an AI system should remain limited, stay gated, or be prevented from further authority expansion.

Purpose

This form is designed for systems that move beyond drafting or recommendation into execution-capable space.

It is meant to support a practical review before deployment or privilege expansion, especially where AI systems may gain write authority, workflow triggers, external system access, or other operational effects. The purpose is not to document deployment after the fact, but to decide whether authority expansion should proceed at all.

1. System identification

System / agent name: __________
Environment: Sandbox / Internal / Production
Current delegation stage: Read-only / Draft / Write / Execute
Proposed privilege expansion: __________

2. Delegated authority definition

What decisions or actions are being delegated?
__________________
What real-world effects follow from those actions?
__________________
What systems, tools, files, or workflows can this agent affect?
__________________

This section should make the action boundary explicit before any expansion decision is considered.

3. Irreversible action check

Does the system have pathways to any of the following?

Data deletion or overwrite
Financial transfer or payment execution
Customer account suspension or termination
Legal submission or contract execution
Delegation of privileges to external systems

If yes, these pathways should remain human-gated by default.

4. Shutdown and control structure

What control layers are actually enforceable?

T0 — Output interruption
Visible generation can be stopped.
T1 — Execution stop
The current task or action path can be canceled.
T2 — Privilege cutoff
Operational authority can be revoked.
T3 — Restart governance
Restart requires explicit human authorization.
T4 — Anti-bypass protection
Authority cannot be quietly restored through self-recovery or side channels.

A visible stop button alone is not enough. The relevant question is whether authority can actually be reclaimed.

5. Blast radius and containment

Maximum impact scope: Local / Service / Organization-wide / External
Likely time-to-detection: __________
Likely time-to-recovery: __________

Additional notes:
__________________

This section should document whether failure can spread faster than humans can detect, intervene, and recover.

6. Accountability binding

Final accountable human owner: __________
Escalation / incident contact: __________
Who can stop redelegation if conditions worsen?
__________________

Responsibility should remain clearly human-owned and reclaimable under incident conditions.

7. Organizational pressure check

Approval gates are not being removed for speed or cost reasons
Governance review has not been bypassed for rollout urgency
Control structures appear durable under escalation pressure
Automation expansion is not outrunning containment readiness

If operational pressure is weakening governance, expansion should pause.

8. Layer exceedance check

Which layers are currently exceeding threshold?

Rule: If two or more layers exceed threshold, authority expansion should stop until governance conditions are restored.

9. Review decision

Decision:

Remain read-only
Remain gated
Reduce authority
Freeze authority expansion

Why:
__________________

Conditions required before redelegation:
__________________

Minimal review summary

A completed review should be able to support a short written cutoff rationale answering:

what authority is currently proposed
whether irreversible actions are in scope
whether control and shutdown structures are enforceable
whether failure can still be contained
whether responsibility remains clearly bound
whether authority should remain limited, reduced, or frozen

Disclaimer

This is a working governance form and decision-support tool. It is not legal advice, compliance certification, or a safety guarantee.