As more teams let AI draft or send customer-facing emails (support, billing, renewals), I’ve been noticing a quiet failure mode:
AI-generated messages making commitments no one explicitly approved. Refunds implied. Discounts promised. Renewals renegotiated.
Not hallucinations but AI doing its job with no authority boundary.
I built a small authority gate that sits between AI-generated messages and delivery.
It does not generate content or replace CRMs or support tools.
It only answers one question before a message is sent=> Is this message allowed to promise money, terms, or actions to a customer?
The system inspects outbound messages, detects customer-facing commitments (refunds, billing changes, renewals, cancellations), blocks delivery or requires human approval, logs every decision for auditability
I’ve made a public sandbox available for teams experimenting with AI-driven customer communication.
I’m not sure yet whether this is a niche edge case or an inevitable new infrastructure layer as AI adoption increases, so I’m especially interested in hearing:
a) whether you’ve seen similar failures
b) how you’re currently handling authority and approvals or why you think this problem won’t matter in practice
Sandbox + docs here: https://authority.bhaviavelayudhan.com
Happy to answer technical questions.
SilverElfin•1mo ago
bhaviav100•1mo ago
The break happens when AI drafts at scale. Training + sampling are after-the-fact controls. By the time a bad commitment is found, the customer expectation already exists.
This is just moving the boundary from social enforcement to a hard system boundary for irreversible actions.
Curious if you’ve seen teams hit that inflection point yet.
chrisjj•1mo ago
If it isn't, then you have no machine smart enough to provide a solution requiring /more/ intelligence.
bhaviav100•1mo ago
chrisjj•1mo ago