Choose one agent and define its boundary
Avoid beginning with a register that promises to capture the whole organisation. Choose an agent connected to an actual decision, such as expanding a pilot, adding a data source or moving a task into everyday use.
Give the agent a stable name or reference. Record where it operates, the business process it supports and the evidence available for review. Distinguish the agent from the wider application or platform that hosts it. A product name alone will not tell a colleague which task, configuration or owner the record describes.
Write down the boundary of the review as well. Identify the environments, users, connectors and actions included. Mark anything outside that boundary as a question for another decision rather than quietly treating it as reviewed.
Name the business owner and the technical decision owner
The business owner should be able to explain why the agent exists, what a useful output looks like and when its use should change. The technical decision owner should understand the relevant configuration, identities and control responsibilities. One person might hold both roles in a small team, but the responsibilities still need to be explicit.
Record a name, role and agreed route for decisions. Confirm that the people listed accept the responsibility. A project sponsor’s name copied from an old presentation is weak evidence of current ownership.
Also identify the people whose approval is required for access or policy changes. The business owner may understand the need without having authority to grant the permissions. Make that handoff visible before it becomes urgent.
Microsoft’s Cloud Adoption Framework treats ownership, identity, lifecycle and observability as coordinated governance responsibilities. That provides useful context for bringing the right decision owners together. Microsoft guidance on governing and securing AI agents.
Connect the task to the access it needs
Describe the task in ordinary business language. State the expected input, intended output and actions the agent is allowed to take. If an agent prepares a draft for a colleague to review, that is a different role from making a change directly in an operational system.
Then document the identity, permissions, connectors and data locations supporting the task. Record the evidence used to understand them, such as an authorised configuration record or a review with the responsible administrator. Keep confidential configuration details in the approved evidence location rather than copying them into a widely shared summary.
For each access decision, ask why the task needs it and who can approve a change. Where the answer is uncertain, record the uncertainty and a person responsible for resolving it. An empty field should never be interpreted as confirmation that no access exists.
For a broader identity and data discussion, explore a scoped Microsoft security review around the next decision you need to make.
Turn human oversight into a specific decision
An instruction to keep a human involved leaves several questions open. Identify which actions need approval, who can give it and what evidence that person needs. Record who can pause the agent and how a concern reaches that person.
Consider a change in scope as well as routine operation. A new data source, a different user group or permission to act directly may require a fresh decision. The fact that the original pilot was approved does not answer whether the expanded role should proceed.
The objective is a usable operating record. A colleague should be able to find the relevant decision owner without reconstructing the project history.
Keep ownership through changes and retirement
Set a next review date and identify the events that should trigger an earlier review. Useful triggers include a change in business purpose, ownership, permissions, connected data or operating environment. The team should decide which triggers matter for the agent in scope.
Record who is responsible for retiring the agent when its business task ends. Retirement may require several separately authorised actions across the relevant systems. Identify those responsibilities rather than assuming that removing a visible front end settles the matter.
Microsoft describes the Agent 365 approach through Observe, Govern and Secure. Those themes can help structure a review, but the visibility and controls available still depend on the supported agent, licences, permissions and configuration. Check those requirements for the actual use case. Microsoft Agent 365 overview.
Make the first ownership record useful this week
Bring the business owner and the relevant IT or security owner together around one agent. Complete the five fields below and link each answer to evidence where appropriate:
Purpose and accountable owners.
Task, output and permitted role.
Identity, access and data connections.
Human approval, escalation and pause responsibilities.
Next review and retirement ownership.
For each unknown, record the decision needed, the person who will resolve it and an agreed review date. Review the record with those people before using it to support a rollout decision. This produces a manageable piece of work without pretending the rest of the environment has already been assessed.
Use the five-question ownership checklist to keep the conversation consistent as the scope develops.
Frequently asked questions
Does an agent register establish that the agent is secure?
The register records ownership, scope and supporting evidence. It does not establish control effectiveness by itself. Use it to identify the decisions and checks that follow. Findings may require configuration review, testing or separately agreed implementation before the responsible owners can decide whether a control is suitable for the task.
Should every agent have a different owner?
The same person may own several agents if that responsibility is practical and accepted. Each record still needs a clear owner, purpose and route for decisions. Confirm the responsibilities with that person and identify any separate technical or access authority, especially when ownership changes or the agent’s role expands.
Can a review begin while some answers are missing?
Yes. Make the missing evidence explicit, identify who can obtain it and agree when the question will be reviewed. Keep the scope boundary clear while that work proceeds. An unknown remains a review item; it should not become an invented answer or a reason to mark a control complete.
What should happen after the record is complete?
Use the findings to decide the next piece of work, with the business and technical owners involved. Agree any access changes, implementation or ongoing governance separately. Preserve the evidence references, unresolved questions and review date so another colleague can understand the decision without having to reconstruct the original project.
Start with the agents relevant to your next decision
Braintree’s scoped agent governance review focuses on an agreed part of your environment. The scoping conversation establishes the agents, evidence, stakeholders, outputs and commercial terms before the paid review begins.
SECURITY
Make the next decision clear.
Explore the related Braintree security services and resources.
