The hard part of delegating to an AI agent is knowing what evidence would let you trust the stop point

I’m a non-technical founder building with AI agents, and I keep seeing the same gap: “ask for approval when the task is risky” is too vague to be useful once an agent is already moving.

For the free beta I built, I tried turning that into a concrete boundary: what the agent owns, what requires a human decision, and what evidence it should return before it continues.

One question from the first public discussion exposed the part I cannot yet claim: whether someone has actually reused that boundary in a live agent run—and whether it changed where the agent paused.

That feels like the real test. A rule can look sensible in a form and still be ignored or become noisy in the middle of work.

If you have delegated meaningful work to an AI agent, I’d be curious:

• What signal makes you trust that the agent stopped at the right point?
• Which decisions do you want it to make without you, and which must stay explicitly yours?
• Have you tried a written execution brief or approval boundary? What broke?

I’m looking for counterexamples as much as confirmations. I have no usage or outcome claim to make yet; this is the validation question I’m working on.