Who owns the yes? Why an approval queue became the product
A skills-data CEO in Ottawa, a social-scheduler founder and a Melbourne CEO move the question from who does the task to who answers for it.
Ask a room full of leaders whether a job goes to a person or an agent, and you get a debate that outlasts the coffee.
Ask three founders, and you get a different question, one that skips the debate entirely.
The question hiding behind the question
Kamran Ahsan, Founder & CEO of SynapseScope Canada (Ottawa, Canada)
“human or agent" skips the harder question, which is who answers for the agent's work.”
“Since ChatGPT launched, research papers on AI governance grew from 147 in 2022 to 616 in 2024, about four times, according to SynapseScope Skills Intelligence, which tracks 48,000+ skills across job postings, patents and research.”
The skills-data founder in Ottawa opens with the reframe. Then he brings a count to show he is not alone in asking.
The approval queue wasn't a safety net. It was the product.
Owen Mel Maysson (Mel), Founder of Sheetfolk
“The approval queue turned out to be the product, not a safety feature bolted on.”
“Every task has a drafting half and an approving half. Automate the first; give the second to a named person.”
His scheduler settles the debate by default: drafts can come from anywhere, release comes from a person.
An agent prepares. A person signs.
Arjun Agarwal, Founder and CEO of inaam (Melbourne, Australia)
“The rule we work to is simple: an agent can prepare anything, and a person signs off anything that reaches a customer, a regulator or someone's money.”
Arjun's answer is a rule short enough to fit in a hiring brief. It sorts work by consequence, not by who or what does it, and it leaves the agent plenty to do.
Where they split
On preparing the work, they point the same way: all three leave room for the agent, and none of them is arguing for a ban.
Kamran puts the owner in the org chart. Ask "who answers for the agent's work", then staff the oversight, whichever way the task goes.
Mel puts the owner in the product. The approving half goes to "a named person", and by default nothing ships without a tap.
Arjun puts the owner in a rule. A person signs off anything that reaches "a customer, a regulator or someone's money", and the agent prepares the rest.
So the split is not about the agent. It is about where the owner lives: the org chart, the product or the rulebook. A company probably needs at least one of the three, and should be able to point to it.
My take
Hiring plans keep sorting jobs into human or agent. The role that holds up is the one with a named owner attached to a sign-off. If you can't say what a person signs, you may be hiring for tasks. Worth checking before the next job post goes out.
Your turn
At your company, what does an agent draft today, and whose name is on the approval?
Next: benefits Q&A has gone fully to AI and coaching prep is automated, yet in financial coaching, benefits and insurance the moment where trust and liability land stays with a person.
