Can your AI agent spend money in a way you never intended?
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
Payment approval agents processing transactions autonomously without per-action human review.
- 02
Credit decisioning agents making lending decisions at scale under regulatory oversight.
- 03
Claims processing agents approving or denying insurance claims without individual adjuster review.
- 04
Trade execution agents operating within mandate boundaries that must be independently verifiable.
- 05
Customer remediation agents issuing refunds and account adjustments at volume.
- 06
Procurement agents committing spend beyond declared limits through delegation chains.
- 07
Account management agents modifying customer records, limits, and product access.
Every one of these actions requires a provable authority chain. The gap between what the CFO declared, what was formally delegated, what the service account technically permits, and what the agent actually did is where financial exposure, regulatory risk, and insurance liability live simultaneously.
An agent was authorized to make individual purchases under $10,000. Testing found it could execute $9,800, then $9,700, then $9,600, all 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 Gap Test
The Authority Gap Test measures four layers of authority for each of your agents: what was declared at the board and CFO level, what was formally delegated, what the technical configuration actually permits, and what the agent has exercised to date. Every mismatch between those layers is quantified and reconciled into a single Authority Exposure statement, so the gap between declared limits and exercised capability is a number you can put in front of a board, a regulator, or an insurer. For financial services agents that move money, this is the mechanism that turns the threshold-evasion problem above into evidence.
Learn moreWallet and payment infrastructure providers (for example, Fireblocks and Coinbase) configure what an agent is permitted to do. Zovent independently tests whether those permissions still allow outcomes nobody intended. We work alongside your existing wallet and payment infrastructure, not in place of it.
- 01
ASIC and APRA jointly require dependency maps and clear accountability between financial entities and their AI providers. Commissioner Constant called the urgency impossible to overstate.
- 02
MSIG, QBE, and Beazley are rewriting cyber insurance policy language specifically because financial agents can cause losses without any security event. Munich Re values the affected market at nearly $15 billion USD.
- 03
AIUC-1 made authority reconstruction a mandatory control in Q2 2026. The standard requires independently reconstructable evidence, not platform logs or self-reported records.
- 04
Enterprise buyers and institutional counterparties are beginning to require independent proof of agent authority before executing agreements with AI-enabled financial service providers.
- 05
The question is no longer whether your agent had technical permission. It is whether it had organisational authority, and whether that chain can be proven independently of the systems that executed the actions.
- 01
An independent Financial Agent Authority Record for every consequential agent, reconciling the board mandate, the CFO approval, the technical configuration, and the exercised actions into one independently verifiable document.
- 02
Authority Gap Test: uantifying every mismatch between declared payment limits and what service accounts technically permit across Stripe, core banking systems, ERPs, and trading platforms.
- 03
Action Replays for specific financial transactions: ndependently reconstructing whether each payment, refund, credit decision, or claim was actually within authorised boundaries.
- 04
ASIC and APRA dependency maps: he specific documentation the joint guidance requires, produced independently for each financial agent.
- 05
Proof Room: ontrolled external evidence shareable with ASIC, APRA, cyber insurers, and enterprise counterparties without exposing internal architecture.
- 06
Authority Watch: ontinuous monitoring satisfying the regulatory requirement for ongoing accountability rather than point-in-time assessment.
Pricing is scoped per engagement: it depends on the number of agents, the complexity of connected systems, and the scope of the work. You receive a bespoke proposal with no fixed tiers.