Solutions ยท Role

You own an agent nobody can personally check any more

The agent works. Adoption is climbing. Numbers from it are turning up in decks you did not write, and the honest answer to “is it right?” has quietly become “probably”.

Last updated 20 September 2026 · Protocol v9.3

The specific problem

A Text-to-SQL agent does not fail the way a dashboard fails. A broken dashboard is obviously broken. A broken agent returns a well-formed, confidently-worded, plausible number — and the reason nobody catches it is that catching it would require re-deriving the answer by hand, which is the entire reason the agent exists.

The defects that do this are structural, not linguistic: a join that fans out and triples revenue, a date filter placed in WHERE instead of the join condition, an SCD-2 lookup that silently picks the current row for a historical question. Generic LLM evaluation does not detect these because the language is fine.

What you get

What it does not give you

Not a certification, not a badge, and not a pass/fail verdict — we do not yet have a defensible cut score and will not manufacture one. You keep the go/no-go decision and the residual-risk acceptance. That is a feature: a vendor that takes the decision off your desk has also taken the judgement out of your hands.

The first conversation

A readiness review establishes three things: which warehouse and agent, whether the semantic layer has a named Business Definition Owner, and whether we can read INFORMATION_SCHEMA and the dbt manifest. If the second is missing we will tell you the engagement is not worth running yet — ambiguity you pay to discover is a bad trade.

See the report → The eighteen failure domains Executive track