Two founding pilots: pay only if SafeAgent Control finds a real discrepancy

[azender1]

SafeAgent’s execution guard helps prevent repeated side effects. SafeAgent Control addresses what happens afterward:

Following retries, restarts, timeouts, or replay, do an application’s execution records agree with the external system that actually performed the actions?

I’m opening two bounded founding pilots to test this with outside operators.

What you provide

Two sanitized, read-only exports:

1. Your application’s execution claims, attempts, or receipts
2. The corresponding records from the external system of record

Possible systems include agent tools, payments, messaging, trading, webhooks, job processing, bookings, or workflow providers.

No production credentials, write access, framework replacement, or SafeAgent installation is required.

What SafeAgent Control does

It compares the records and classifies each case as:

• Confirmed
• Missing externally
• Unrecorded internally
• Uncertain because evidence is incomplete
• Ambiguous
• Identifier conflict
• Contradiction

An unmatched record is not automatically treated as proof of failure. The analysis separates genuinely missing side effects from incomplete retrieval, missing identifier lineage, and other uncertainty.

Founding-pilot scope

• One application source
• One external system of record
• One bounded date range
• Up to 5,000 records
• Private field mapping
• Written reconciliation report
• Findings review
• No production integration or remediation work

Outcome-based terms

There is no charge unless SafeAgent Control identifies at least one previously unknown, reproducible discrepancy that the operator agrees is actionable.

• Qualifying discrepancy found: $750
• No qualifying discrepancy found: $0

Before reviewing the records, we will agree in writing on the dataset, tested scope, and definition of a qualifying finding.

SafeAgent Control has already been exercised against real paper-trading execution records. That work demonstrated why reconciliation must distinguish a genuinely missing side effect from incomplete retrieval or identifier lineage. It has not yet established outside customer adoption; that is the purpose of these founding pilots.

The useful test is straightforward:

Does SafeAgent Control surface something you did not already know, and is the result useful enough that you would run it again?

If your system has experienced uncertain completion, duplicate attempts, checkpoint replay, worker restarts, or disagreement between internal records and a provider, reply here with a brief description or contact me privately through the repository.