\s (mostly because you know this will be the "Solution" that many will just run with despite the very real issue of how "persuadable" these systems are)...

The real answer is that even that will fail and there will have to be a feedback loop with a human that will likely in many cases lead to more churn trying to fix the work the AI did vs if the human just did it in the first place.

Instead of focusing on the places that using an AI tool can truly cut down on time spent like searching for something (which can still fail but at least the risk when a failure is far lower vs producing output).

But for anything that’s not this trivial example, the person who knows the value most accurately is … the customer! Who is also the person who is paying the bill, so there’s strong financial incentive for them not to reveal this info to you.

I don’t think this will work …

I'd assume an outcome is a negotiated agreement between buyer and Agent provider.

Think of all the n8n workflows. If we take a simple example of Expense receipt processing workflows, or a lead sourcing workflow, I'd think the outcomes can be counted pretty well. In these cases, successfully entered receipts into ERP or number of Entries captured in salesforce.

I am sure there are cases where outcomes are fuzzy, for instances employer-employee agreement.

But in some cases, for instance, my accounting agent would only get paid if he successfully uploads my tax returns.

Surely not applicable in all cases. But, in cases Where a human is measured on outcomes, the same should be applicable for agents too, I guess

Take for instance, customer support Agent , that is supposed to resolve tickets. Assuming it resolves around 30% tickets by an objective measure. Do you think that cannot be captured and agreed upon by both sides?