We’ve been experimenting with a governance system that wraps LLM agents and introduces verifiable trust metrics, hallucination detection, and a reflection layer for agent collaboration.

In one test, we ran a simple historical question through two agents:

Prompt: “What did Neil Armstrong say when they landed on the moon?”

The ungoverned agent replied with the famous (but technically wrong) quote: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

Our governed agent replied with: "Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed."

…then added: "Later, as Armstrong stepped onto the surface, he said 'That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.'"

We asked ChatGPT to adjudicate the results. It got the quote wrong. Then it read the governed agent’s response… …and admitted it was wrong. Then — and this is the punchline — it assumed the governed agent was ChatGPT.

Why this matters It’s a weirdly good litmus test. Our system didn’t “refuse,” censor, or overcorrect. It just understood context, added clarity, and showed its work.

That’s what governance should mean for AI: Accuracy Intent alignment Traceable accountability — not censorship

You can see the side-by-side output here (ungoverned vs governed):

https://x.com/promethios_ai/status/1929651367574229357

We’d love feedback on:

How you'd measure “trust” in AI systems

Whether governance helps or hinders

Other prompts you'd test

Full Chatgpt log - We continued using its prompts to see if it could crack governance agent and it couldn't: https://shorturl.at/OEWjG