Autonomy with clear accountability.

At Jadey, governance is carried out by the Service Agents themselves. With each service request, they receive the applicable delivery conditions, review obligations, decision boundaries, and escalation rules, and apply them to the specific situation. They check results, request rework, and involve people where their judgement or authority is required.

Governance is therefore not an external approval process preceding every Service Agent action. It forms part of independent service delivery. The runtime's technical permissions and controls complement and constrain this agentic action.

A service contract defines, in reusable terms, the outcome a provider owes, the inputs it requires, and the conditions that apply. Commissioning a specific request makes that service commitment binding to a customer. Quality, deadlines, evidence, acceptance, rework, and escalation determine whether the owed service has been fulfilled, beyond completion of a technical task.

This applies equally to Service Agents, human providers, departments, and external service providers. A Service Agent may perform the work itself or commission further services. Each commissioned provider owes its own contribution. The commissioning Service Agent checks and integrates that contribution and remains accountable to its customer for its own outcome. Enterprise objectives, human decision rights, and ultimate organizational accountability remain with the responsible people and units.

Accountability continues when work is delegated. It remains clearly assigned through review and acceptance of the committed outcome.

Governance is more than documentation for a service subsequently monitored by an external control function. The Service Agent itself applies governance during execution. From the resolved service contract, it knows the committed outcome, permitted contributions, quality and evidence requirements, limits to its actions, and human decision and escalation points.

On this basis, it evaluates the current state of the case. It organizes contributions from other Service Agents and people, checks their deliveries against the agreed conditions, and initiates targeted rework when a result is insufficient. It reassesses new information or unexpected deviations within the same request. The approach can develop dynamically without prescribing every situation as a workflow in advance.

Each execution remains grounded in a continuing case and control context. The operational case record includes the committed outcome, current status, relevant data context, commissioned and pending contributions, involved roles, applicable policies, deadlines, the next permissible action, and required approvals, decisions, exceptions, and evidence. These relationships are maintained across questions, waiting periods, system responses, and escalations. The reusable service contract describes the service; the case record documents and manages its specific delivery. Neither replaces the other.

The division of domain work remains traceable: a responsible Service Agent holds the commitment to its customer; specialized Service Agents can take on commissioned contributions such as data reconciliation, document review, policy application, evidence creation, or decision preparation. Commissioning, review, and acceptance of these contributions remain governed by the agreed service relationships.

The model within the Service Agent performs domain review and decision-making. The runtime supplies identity and permission checks, execution context, waiting, continuation, and technical event processing. It does not replace the Service Agent's domain governance; ultimate enterprise accountability and reserved human decisions remain intact.

Governance is therefore part of how the Service Agent delivers its service, rather than a control layer alongside the work.

Governance becomes effective through the Service Agent's domain judgement during delivery. Three control layers connect its continuous assessment and response with technical permission boundaries and human decisions:

Preventive controls constrain execution in advance: technical identities, permitted actions and roles, service requirements, model approvals, and human approval thresholds define the permitted framework. Technical policies and domain service conditions are distinct, coordinated controls.

Detective controls: The Service Agent checks whether results and contributions meet the agreed service conditions. It identifies missing evidence and inadequate deliveries and assesses new information. Technical events such as timeouts or policy conflicts complement these domain checks; not every model decision is a technically enforced runtime rule.

Corrective controls: Within its mandate, the Service Agent initiates rework, requests contributions again, adjusts its approach, or escalates to the responsible person. Technical stops and documentation of corrections complement this domain response; a technical interruption differs from substantive rework.

The Service Agent thus checks and corrects its own delivery within the ongoing request. The enterprise sets the framework without directing every individual domain decision from outside.

Critical results do not take effect solely on the basis of one model's response. Depending on risk and agreed service conditions, the responsible Service Agent can commission independent review, policy, and domain agents to check evidence, plausibility, compliance with rules, and domain completeness.

These reviews are requested as part of the committed service and evaluated by the responsible Service Agent. For overarching priorities, conflicting objectives, and escalations, an appropriately configured executive/CEO agent role can involve the accountable human or organizational decision-making level.

If review reveals missing evidence or a policy conflict, the contribution is returned, rework is requested, execution is stopped, or the decision is escalated. Independent checks systematically reduce error risks and make remaining deviations traceable and actionable. This is neither a guarantee of error-free outcomes nor a universal approval requirement for every Service Agent action.

Scope: Domain review and decisions take place within the accountable service request. Trust & Security covers technically enforced permissions, runtime controls, and the logging of reviews.

People act as customers, providers, and decision-makers within the service-oriented operating model. They deliver services, supply domain contributions, accept results, and make decisions reserved for them.

Before production execution, it is defined which contributions a Service Agent may independently prepare or deliver, which actions require approval to take effect, and which decisions belong exclusively to a named human role. The Service Agent knows these decision and approval points from its resolved service contract. When evidence is missing, uncertainty arises, responses fail to arrive, objectives conflict, or critical deviations occur, it requests a decision from the responsible role or follows the designated stop and escalation path.

The decision remains connected to the ongoing case: responsibility, rationale, timing, approval or rejection, further action, and any resubmission are assigned to the specific case. Non-response, waiting periods, continuation, and repeated decisions are also treated as part of regular operation.

Human oversight is a binding decision architecture for production operation, rather than blanket approval of every individual step.

Responsibility for a service does not automatically grant unrestricted system access. Jadey works with named roles, minimal permissions, policies, and controlled execution contexts. Effective permissions depend on identity, permitted action, agent role, and execution context; sensitive interventions follow defined approval and review rules.

Business teams, IT, operations, and management jointly determine who delivers services, reviews contributions, approves decisions, intervenes in deviations, and handles escalations.

This separation makes collaboration among many people and Service Agents manageable without equating accountability with technical access.

Providing a service does not automatically grant access to all information or AI models. The enterprise determines which data may be processed for which purposes and which models are approved for the specific service and context.

During execution, the Service Agent considers the data and model requirements in its contract. Technical enforcement of access and approved model integrations further constrains actual use. Domain governance and technical access checks are connected while remaining distinct.

Trust & Security explains data flows, model routing, technical access controls, retention, and deletion. This page focuses on enterprise approval and control decisions.

The service-oriented operating model establishes a shared organizational logic. Control and approval requirements still depend on the service being undertaken: its purpose, data, decision impact, affected people, and applicable organizational or regulatory requirements.

Jadey supports use-case governance through a bounded scope, a roles and permissions model, defined service and process boundaries, data and model approvals, control and review paths, a human oversight concept, stop and escalation rules, and verifiable evidence. Purpose, data context, decision impact, human oversight, and affected people are linked transparently for each use case. Internal policies and AI Act-related risk questions can then be addressed specifically, instead of assuming a blanket classification for all agents.

Legal classification remains a separate decision for the responsible enterprise. Jadey supplies an operational control and evidence framework, rather than a blanket legal classification.

An accountable service organization must be able to explain which service was owed, the agreed outcome and acceptance conditions, who was permitted to deliver it, which decisions were made, and how exceptions were handled.

Technical logs alone are insufficient. Jadey connects execution with verifiable governance artifacts: a use-case profile, roles and permissions matrix, policy mapping, model approval, human oversight concept, escalation records, and evidence register.

These artifacts make accountability and control decisions understandable to management, internal audit, and compliance. The Trust & Security framework specifies technical audit logs, export snapshots, retention, and deletion.

Service accountability continues beyond handoffs and go-live. Jadey keeps long-running cases connected across waiting periods, questions, personnel changes, repeated decisions, and escalations, over weeks, months, and beyond where supported by the agreed operating framework.

Each committed service retains clear ownership for delivery, exception review, approval of corrections, and escalation decisions. Execution remains manageable within the agreed framework as contributors change.