> It shouldn't matter, because whoever is producing the work product is responsible for it, no matter whether genAI was involved or not.

  | *Who authorized this class of action, for which agent identity, under what constraints, for how long; and how did that authority flow?*
  | A common failure mode in agent incidents is not “we don’t know what happened,” but:
  | > We can’t produce a crisp artifact showing that a specific human explicitly authorized the scope that made this action possible.

> They explicitly state that the problem is you don't know which human to point at.

The point is "explicitly authorized", as the article emphasizes. It's easy to find who ran the agent(article assumes they have OAuth log). This article is about 'Everyone knows who did it, but did they do it on purpose? Our system can figure it out'