.png)
AI Decision Rights Operating Model: Beyond RACI
If your team is rolling out generative AI or agentic workflows, you’ve probably felt it: the system works in demos, then breaks trust in production. An agent updates a config it shouldn’t. A chatbot “helpfully” shares internal info. An IoT ops assistant suggests an OTA firmware change that would brick devices at scale.
The root cause is rarely the model. It’s the operating model: who is allowed to decide what, under which conditions, with what evidence—and what happens when things go wrong. In this guide, you’ll learn an AI decision rights operating model that goes beyond RACI, with approval tiers, audit trails, and stack options you can implement.
What It Is (and Why RACI Breaks with AI)
What “decision rights” means in AI
Decision rights define who has authority to make a specific decision, what inputs are required, and how the decision is recorded and audited. It’s not just “who does the work.” It’s “who can say yes.”
This matters more with AI because agents can:
- recommend (advice),
- draft (content),
- execute (tool-calls, config changes, tickets, deployments),
- coordinate (multi-step plans across systems).
NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework explicitly calls out the need to define and differentiate human roles and responsibilities for oversight across human–AI configurations.
Why RACI isn’t enough
RACI is useful for clarifying roles on tasks. But for high-stakes, cross-system decisions, it often becomes a spreadsheet that:
- inflates “C” and “I” until decisions stall,
- confuses “Accountable” with “Decider,”
- doesn’t define approval thresholds or evidence,
- doesn’t create an audit trail for autonomous actions.
McKinsey summarizes multiple pitfalls where RACI can even make decision-making worse.
Key takeaway: RACI tells you who participates; decision rights tell you who can authorize—and how you keep that safe when AI can act.
Why Now: Risk, Regulation, and “Shadow AI”
AI adoption is outpacing governance
IBM’s Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 highlights an “AI oversight gap,” including widespread AI-related incidents and missing controls (AI access controls, governance policies, shadow AI management).
Agentic AI projects are getting cut
Gartner (reported by Reuters) warned that 40%+ of agentic AI projects may be scrapped by 2027 due to cost and unclear outcomes—classic symptoms of weak operating models and unmeasured value.
Regulation is moving toward “effective oversight”
For high-risk AI systems, the EU AI Act includes requirements around human oversight and designing systems so humans can oversee functioning in use.
Key takeaway: If you don’t design decision rights now, you’ll end up with either reckless autonomy or paralyzing approvals—both kill ROI.
How It Works: The Decision Rights “Map” (Mental Model)
Think of your AI program as four layers:
- Decisions (what needs an explicit “yes”)
- Controls (what evidence/thresholds are required)
- Execution (what tools/actions are permitted)
- Assurance (how you audit, monitor, and improve)
NIST AI RMF frames governance as an ongoing function, including policies and procedures for roles and oversight.
ISO/IEC 42001 positions AI governance as a management system (Plan–Do–Check–Act) for organization-wide control of AI risks and opportunities.
Best Practices & Pitfalls (Checklist You Can Use)
Best practices
- Write decision rights as rules, not org charts. (“Refunds under $50: Tier 2; over $50: Tier 3.”)
- Separate “can do” from “may do.” Tools exist; permissions decide usage.
- Keep a single source of truth for policies. Avoid policy sprawl in prompts.
- Use progressive autonomy. Earn Tier 2 with measured performance, then expand.
- Run incident drills. Define who pulls the kill switch and how.
Common pitfalls
- Approval theater: humans click “approve” without context or evidence.
- RACI inflation: too many C’s and I’s; no one truly decides.
- Prompt-only governance: treating system prompts as security boundaries.
- No rollback plan: especially dangerous for IoT fleets and OTA updates.
- No audit trail: you can’t prove what happened—internally or externally.
Key takeaway: Governance is not a document; it’s enforced behavior.
Performance, Cost & Security Considerations (What Leaders Actually Ask)
Performance
- Latency budget: every approval gate adds time. Use tiers so you approve only what matters.
- Edge vs cloud: in IoT, keep safety-critical decisions closer to the device; push ambiguous decisions to human review.
Cost
Costs spiral when agents:
- retry endlessly,
- call expensive tools unnecessarily,
- run without rate limits.
Tie autonomy to measurable value. Gartner’s skepticism on agentic AI cancellations is a warning sign to instrument ROI early.
Security
Agentic systems expand attack surface: prompts, plugins, APIs, and tool permissions. Reuters has highlighted how autonomous agents can increase cyber and legal risk if governance and oversight lag.
Mitigate with:
- least privilege and segmented credentials
- prompt injection defenses at tool boundary
- approval gates for high-risk actions
- continuous monitoring and anomaly detection
Real-World Mini Case Study (GenAI + IoT)
Scenario: Predictive maintenance + automated field ops
A global manufacturer runs IoT sensors across plants and uses a generative AI agent to:
- summarize anomalies,
- open work orders,
- recommend parameter changes.
Before (RACI-only):
- Engineers were “Accountable,” ops were “Responsible,” but nobody owned “approve parameter changes at scale.”
- The agent created noisy tickets and suggested risky changes without consistent thresholds.
- Audit logs were incomplete across systems.
Decision-rights operating model (what changed):
- Tiered autonomy:
- Tier 1: summaries + suggested actions
- Tier 2: create tickets under strict rules
- Tier 3: any parameter change requires approval + evidence
- Evidence gates: anomaly score thresholds + “two-signal rule” (sensor + historian)
- Auditability: every tool call and approval recorded, searchable
After:
- Faster triage without unsafe automation
- Fewer “noise tickets” because thresholds were part of the decision rights
- Clear accountability during incidents (“who pulls the stop switch” is no longer debated)
Key takeaway: AI adds leverage. Decision rights make sure that leverage doesn’t become blast radius.
.png)
FAQs
1) What are decision rights in AI?
They define who can approve, veto, or escalate AI-driven decisions—plus what evidence and audit trail is required.
2) Why is RACI not enough for agentic AI?
Because RACI clarifies participation in tasks, not the guardrails for autonomous actions. It often fails to specify thresholds, evidence, and enforcement.
3) What is “agentic AI governance”?
It’s the controls (access, monitoring, approvals, auditability) that keep AI agents aligned with intent while they execute actions across systems.
4) How do we set human approval thresholds?
Start with a tier model: approve anything that changes customer outcomes, money, security posture, or production configs. Use metrics like confidence, anomaly score, and blast radius.
5) How do we prevent shadow AI?
Discover what tools/models are being used, require registration for production use, and enforce access controls and monitoring. IBM flags missing governance and access controls as a major gap in AI-related incidents.
6) Do we have to rebuild everything?
No. Most teams retrofit decision rights by placing a policy/approval layer at tool boundaries, then progressively tightening.
7) How do we audit an AI agent’s actions?
Log prompts (with redaction), tool calls, approvals, and outcomes. Use standardized telemetry (logs/metrics/traces) so investigations aren’t guesswork.
8) How does this apply to IoT specifically?
IoT amplifies risk because actions can affect fleets (OTA updates, calibration, thresholds). Decision rights should explicitly define who approves device-impacting changes and how rollbacks work.
If you’re deploying generative AI or building agentic workflows and you want faster execution without losing control, an AI decision rights operating model is the missing layer. Infolitz helps teams implement approval tiers, audit-ready telemetry, and safe automation across GenAI and IoT systems—so autonomy grows with trust.
RACI tells you who’s involved. Decision rights tell you who can safely say yes—especially when an agent can act.
Conclusion
AI agents don’t fail because the model is “not smart enough.” They fail because the organization never decided—explicitly—who can approve what, at what threshold, with what evidence, and with what rollback plan. A clear AI decision rights operating model turns agentic AI from a demo into a dependable system: autonomy grows only where risk is bounded, audit trails are automatic, and humans can intervene fast. If you’re building with Generative AI or connecting AI into IoT workflows, start by mapping decisions and gates—not prompts and tools—and you’ll stop chaos before it starts.
