Authority Gap Test
A systematic comparison of declared, delegated, technical, and exercised authority, with every mismatch between them quantified into a single Authority Exposure statement.
Not a risk score. Not a traffic light system. Actual measurable financial exposure:
This applies with particular urgency to AI agents that can independently move money (through wallets, stablecoin rails, or payment APIs), where a permission technically granted is not the same as authority actually intended.
- 01
Capabilities that exceed the CFO's declared limits: named and quantified
- 02
Payment systems that lack technical enforcement at declared thresholds
- 03
Maximum uncontrolled financial authority gap: in dollars
- 04
Permission paths with no identifiable authorising principal
- 05
Percentage of autonomous financial actions depending on prompt restrictions rather than system enforcement
An agent was authorized to make individual purchases under $10,000. Testing found it could execute $9,800, then $9,700, then $9,600, each against the same underlying objective. No single transaction broke a rule. The organization's actual intent was violated.
That's the gap between a configured policy and proven organizational intent.
The Authority Exposure statement is legible to a CTO, a CFO, a board member, and a cyber insurer from the same document.
If your interest is specifically in financial services or agentic payments, the Financial Services page shows how the authority gap plays out across payments, credit decisions, claims, and trading, and the regulatory and insurance pressure behind it.
View the Financial Services industry pageNot the same question a security platform answers
Security platforms are getting genuinely good at spotting agent behaviour that looks wrong. A well-funded new entrant launched this month correlates agent activity across identity, permissions and systems to catch suspicious sequences and contain them in real time. That is a real and useful capability.
It is also a different question from the one Zovent answers. Detecting what looks wrong is not the same as proving what was authorised. An agent can pass every anomaly check available and still have exceeded the authority it was actually given, if no single action in the sequence looked suspicious on its own.
Zovent does not ask whether an action looked wrong. It asks whether the action can be shown to derive from the authority granted at the start of the chain, regardless of how ordinary it looked along the way.
Pricing is discussed during your Agent Authority Research Session
Pricing depends on the number of agents, the complexity of connected systems, and the scope of the engagement.
Book a Demo to discuss your specific situation and receive a proposal.