A large procurement workflow that looks safe at the state level can still hide sizable next-step uncertainty: expanding state detail from 42 to 668 raises state-action blind mass from 0.0165 to 0.1253, implying much higher oversight needs than coarse metrics suggest; a simple maximum-probability score m(s) predicted autonomous-step accuracy on held-out data within about 3.4 percentage points.

Main Finding

The paper introduces a Markovian, measure-theoretic framework that makes “pre-deployment” reliability and oversight-cost for agentic AI auditable from event logs. Two finite-sample metrics — state blind-spot mass Bn(τ) and state-action blind mass BSA π,n(τ) — together with an entropy-and-risk escalation gate, identify where historical support (and therefore justified autonomy) ends. Applied to a large enterprise procurement log (BPI 2019), the framework shows that coarse state coverage can look adequate while a substantial fraction of actual decision mass is under-supported at the state-action level (e.g., BSA π,n(1000) = 0.1253 under a refined state), and that the same gate that defines a reliability envelope analytically determines expected oversight cost. A simple chronological held-out agent experiment shows that the greedy-action confidence m(s) = maxa ˆπ(a|s) tracks realized autonomous-step accuracy within ≈3.4 percentage points on average.

Key Points

• Stochastic gap: inserting agentic (stochastic) policies into near-deterministic workflows turns evaluation from “is the next step plausible?” into “is the trajectory distribution historically supported and economically governable?”
• Two operational coverage metrics:
  • State blind-spot mass Bn(τ): deployment state occupancy mass in states with < τ historical visits.
  • State-action blind mass BSA π,n(τ): deployment state-action occupancy mass in state-action pairs with < τ visits — more directly relevant to agentic decisions.
• Support mismatch is formalized via measure decomposition; finite-sample blind masses are practical analogues of singular (unsupported) deployment mass.
• Entropy and risk:
  • Local ambiguity is measured by Shannon entropy H(ˆπ(·|s)).
  • Value- and exception-weighted risk scores w(s), wSA(s,a) capture economic consequence.
  • A HITL escalation gate Gτ,h0,w0(s) escalates states with low support, high entropy, or high risk.
• Oversight-cost identity:
  • Expected per-case cost under gate G: C(π;G) = cA E[T] + (cH − cA) Σs Dπ(s) G(s).
  • Adding an error penalty yields Cλ(π;G) and directly couples permissiveness of autonomy with expected error exposure.
• Surrogates for case-level outcomes:
  • Zero-touch completion surrogate: eC0(G) = E[∏t (1−G(st)) m(st)]
  • Safe-completion-with-fallback surrogate: eRsafe(G) = E[∏t (G(st) + (1−G(st)) m(st))]
  • In held-out tests, m(s) proved a good step-level accuracy surrogate (≈3.4 pp average error).
• Empirical audit highlights:
  • State refinement (activity → activity+item_type+GR → +value_bin+actor) expands states from 42 → 190 → 668 and state-action pairs from 498 → 1,217 → 3,262.
  • Even with 1.6M events, refined state-action blind mass is substantial: BSA π,n(50) = 0.0165; BSA π,n(200) = 0.0462; BSA π,n(1000) = 0.1253.
  • Highest entropy contexts concentrate in human approval and exception-handling, especially in high-value bins.
• Practicality: the framework is directly implementable where operational event logs exist and produces interpretable metrics that link statistical support, local ambiguity, economic consequence, and human-touch requirements.

Data & Methods

• Data:
  • BPI 2019 purchase-to-pay event log: 251,734 cases, 1,595,923 events, 42 distinct activities; both human and system actors.
  • Case lengths: mean 6.34 events, median 5, 99th pct 24, maximum 990. Self-loop rate ~15.7%.
• State abstractions evaluated:
  • s(1): activity only (42 states)
  • s(2): activity + item_type + goods-receipt flag (190 states)
  • s(3): activity + item_type + goods-receipt flag + discretized value bin + actor class (668 states)
• Empirical estimators:
  • Empirical next-step policy ˆπ(a|s) = N(s,a)/N(s)
  • Empirical transition kernel ˆP(s'|s,a) = N(s,a,s')/N(s,a)
  • Empirical occupancy ˆdπ(s) and ˆdπ(s,a) from training log counts
• Blind-mass definitions:
  • Bn(τ) = Σs ˆdπ(s) 1{N(s) < τ}
  • BSA π,n(τ) = Σs,a ˆdπ(s,a) 1{N(s,a) < τ}
  • Risk-weighted BSA,∗ π,n(τ) = Σs,a ˆdπ(s,a) wSA(s,a) 1{N(s,a) < τ}
• HITL gate: Gτ,h0,w0(s) = 1{N(s) < τ ∨ H(ˆπ(·|s)) > h0 ∨ w(s) > w0}
• Agent simulation and evaluation:
  • Chronological 80/20 split by case completion time: 201,387 cases (train), 50,347 cases (held-out).
  • Simulated agent: on held-out state s, escalate if G(s)=1 else pick greedy action ˆa(s)=argmaxa ˆπ(a|s).
  • Evaluation metrics:
    • Aevent, Acase (autonomous decision/case shares)
    • Realized zero-touch completion Ctest0(G) and realized safe-completion Rtest_safe(G)
    • Mean human touches (Htest_case(G))
  • Comparison of theoretical surrogates eC0(G), eRsafe(G) against realized outcomes; m(s) tracked realized step accuracy within ≈3.4 percentage points on average.

Implications for AI Economics

• Pre-deployment auditing is necessary: large logs and apparently well-covered coarse states can mask substantial decision-level blind mass; firms should compute state-action coverage (BSA) not just state coverage.
• Data requirements grow with state refinement: incorporating economically relevant context (value bins, actor class, case-level context) greatly expands the state-action space and therefore the sample size needed to justify autonomous decisioning. This implies increasing marginal data collection costs (or the need to simplify process state) for wider autonomy.
• Automation vs oversight tradeoff is quantifiable: the gate produces explicit formulas for expected oversight cost and error exposure (C(π;G), Cλ(π;G)). These let firms evaluate whether automation reduces total cost or merely shifts costs to human oversight.
• ROI and scaling risk: because blind mass and entropy concentrate on higher-consequence and exception-handling states, automating for marginal productivity gains can leave a residual set of expensive human-in-the-loop tasks that dominate operational cost, explaining why many projects fail to scale or realize projected ROI.
• Policy and product design guidance:
  • Use event-log audits to identify where process redesign (reduce branching, add validation rules), additional labeled data collection, or human fallback is most valuable.
  • Prioritize automated handling of low-entropy, well-supported transitions while gating high-entropy/high-risk transitions.
  • Entropy- and risk-weighted gating allocates scarce human attention to high-consequence ambiguity and improves cost-effectiveness versus naive coverage thresholds.
• Regulatory, governance, and insurance relevance: the framework supplies audit-ready, interpretable metrics (blind masses, expected human touches, error-cost tradeoffs) that can be used in compliance checks, contractual SLAs, and risk quantification for insurers.
• Limitations and caution:
  • Observational-log-based evaluation cannot observe counterfactual next states; empirical agent evaluation is imitation-style and assumes the logged next action is “correct.”
  • Threshold choice (τ,h0,w0), state encoding decisions, and the choice of cost parameters (cA, cH, λ) materially affect conclusions; these must be tailored to business context.
  • The simple greedy-agent model is a baseline; more sophisticated agents or interventions (e.g., active learning, targeted data collection) will change the sample-efficiency and cost tradeoffs.
• Broad economic takeaway: credible, economically viable deployment of agentic AI in enterprises depends as much on statistical support at the decision (state-action) level and on structured gating (entropy+risk) as on model accuracy; absent such audits, automation programs risk underestimating human oversight costs and overestimating scalable ROI.