Vision
Vision
The Org Chart Nobody Drew
The average enterprise now runs 37 AI agents. Most were never reviewed by a security team. More than half operate without logging. Only about a quarter of organizations can see which of their agents are talking to each other. RSA 2026 mobilized around this problem. Governance tools, identity platforms, discovery engines. Threat containment was the universal pitch.
Then look at what the vendors actually shipped. Products that onboard agents through structured workflows. That assign them to human managers. That sort their actions into tiers of decision authority. The security industry set out to build better monitoring. Look closely at what they built, and a different picture emerges of what's forming inside the enterprise.
The Org Chart Nobody Drew
The average enterprise now runs 37 AI agents. Most were never reviewed by a security team. More than half operate without logging. Only about a quarter of organizations can see which of their agents are talking to each other. RSA 2026 mobilized around this problem. Governance tools, identity platforms, discovery engines. Threat containment was the universal pitch.
Then look at what the vendors actually shipped. Products that onboard agents through structured workflows. That assign them to human managers. That sort their actions into tiers of decision authority. The security industry set out to build better monitoring. Look closely at what they built, and a different picture emerges of what's forming inside the enterprise.
Two Faces of It
Who Answers for the Agent
When an AI agent updates the wrong record or routes an approval to the wrong person, the org chart offers no answer about who's responsible. Enterprises have embraced "agents as team members," but team members exercise judgment before acting. Agents don't pause. Someone will eventually own the consequences of non-human decisions. The tooling for that person is already being built. The role just doesn't have a name yet, possibly because nobody wants the job.
The Pressure Gradient
The first piece looks up and down the org chart for who owns an agent's mistakes. This one looks across it, at what happens when two functions can't agree on whether the agent should have been deployed at all. Ninety percent of organizations pressure security teams to loosen identity controls for AI. Both sides are behaving rationally. Their reward structures just point in opposite directions, and better dashboards won't reconcile them.
Forty-Three Agents Nobody Hired — One VP's Reckoning with Shadow AI
CONTINUE READINGThe Market Response
Microsoft's Agent 365, generally available May 1 at $15 per user per month, is a governance layer for managing AI agents across the enterprise. The product is fine. The interesting part is what it takes for granted: that agent populations inside organizations have grown wild enough to need their own infrastructure.
Microsoft reportedly found 500,000 agents inside its own environment while building this. If the vendor creating the governance tool couldn't see what it had, most enterprises are flying blind.
But notice what the category name frames as the problem. Visibility. Control. Permissions. These are real concerns. They're also the concerns a platform vendor is well-positioned to solve. The harder questions, like whether organizations are losing the judgment to know when an agent's output is subtly wrong, don't fit neatly into a $15/month SKU.
Going Deeper
