IGX Solutions
Screen a use case Screen
Stage three · Detailed Agentic Readiness Assessment

Process Deep Dive Assessment

Make the most of your assessment.

Before you start, this page covers what is assessed and what should be confirmed before this stage. Reviewing that guidance will help you complete the assessment with a more accurate, defensible result.

Start the assessment
The assessment

Assess the process and the agent together.

Answer against the use case as it stands today, and record the evidence behind each answer. Where two answers seem to apply, choose the lower one unless the higher state is evidenced. The result appears on screen as soon as you finish, and a copy is emailed to you.

Loading the assessment.

What is assessed

The process and the agent are assessed together.

This is not a general judgement about whether the organisation uses AI. It evaluates one defined combination of process boundary, intended outcome, proposed agent role and objective, authorised actions, systems and data, human oversight, affected people, and recovery requirements.

The same process may support one agentic use case but not another. An agent that drafts a recommendation for a human gate and an agent that executes an irreversible transaction need different evidence, controls and authority.

Before this stage

Begin with a use case clear enough to assess.

Identify the process owner, the executive sponsor, the intended outcome, the proposed agent actions, the systems and information involved, the affected people, the intended autonomy, and the relevant jurisdictions.

Not sure it should progress?

Run the free Process Readiness Assessment first. It directs the next step in about 10 minutes.

Screen a use case

Ownership or governance unresolved?

Run the Organisation Readiness Assessment with a multidisciplinary team to establish the wider context.

Start the assessment
Why this assessment is different

An average is not allowed to hide the reason an agent should not act.

  • Evidence is scored separately. For each answer, assessors record whether it is verified, partially evidenced, an unsupported assertion, or unknown. The evidence confidence index stays visible next to maturity.
  • Twenty-four critical gates constrain the result. Accountable ownership, bounded objectives, permitted and prohibited actions, information fitness, legal classification, agent identity, least privilege, meaningful human oversight, representative testing, end-to-end observability, containment and continuity. A missing gate cannot be offset by strong scores elsewhere.
  • Conditional risk is examined when relevant. Extra gates apply when the agent uses persistent memory, delegates to other agents, or materially affects people. Not applicable requires a recorded reason and is never scored as a high answer.
  • The result includes an autonomy ceiling. The assessment distinguishes advisory assistance, human-approved action, bounded supervised action and governed autonomy. It identifies the highest level the evidence supports. It never authorises that level.
  • The calculation is deterministic. The score is produced by published rules, weights and gates. A language model does not decide whether the use case passes. Every result records the version of the questions and scoring method used.
What the result contains

Five views of readiness.

A score is not a certificate. A ceiling is not an approval.

  1. 1

    Weighted maturity

    An overall score and eleven dimension scores show how developed the relevant capabilities are. Authority, identity, risk, testing and operations carry more weight than the rest.

  2. 2

    Evidence confidence index

    A separate score shows whether the answers are supported by current evidence or rest on assertion and unknowns. An unsupported claim stays visible.

  3. 3

    Critical gate status

    Twenty-four gates, red, amber or green. A red gate constrains the result regardless of the scores around it. Four gates are conditional and apply only where memory, delegation or effects on people are in scope.

  4. 4

    Readiness decision

    One of R0 to R5, from "insufficient basis to assess" through "candidate for a bounded supervised experiment" to "strong candidate for governed scaling review". Candidate means suitable to enter the next decision, not approved.

  5. 5

    Indicative autonomy ceiling

    A0 to A5, the highest form of agent involvement the current evidence supports, from advisory assistance through bounded supervised action to governed autonomy. An accountable body must still authorise any deployment or increase in authority.

Readiness decision

R0
Insufficient basis to assess
R1
Critical foundation work required
R2
Suitable for design and controlled validation
R3
Candidate for a bounded supervised experiment
R4
Candidate for controlled production validation
R5
Strong candidate for governed scaling review

Autonomy ceiling

A0
No agent action
A1
Advisory assistance only
A2
Human-approved action
A3
Bounded supervised action
A4
Governed autonomy within defined conditions
A5
Expanded or dynamic autonomy review
From result to roadmap

The assessment ends with owned action, not a PDF score.

Every material finding traces to a question, a gate or an evidence gap and becomes an action with an owner, a dependency, the evidence required to close it, a decision gate and a reassessment trigger. That is the Readiness Roadmap.

See how the roadmap works Discuss an assessment

The Detailed Agentic Readiness Assessment provides an indicative, evidence-based decision-support baseline. It does not constitute certification, assurance, legal, regulatory, security or technical advice, or authorisation to deploy an AI system. A competent accountable body must make the deployment decision using appropriate specialist evidence for the process, use case, sector, affected people and jurisdictions involved.