Different problems. Same missing primitive.
Decision Infrastructure serves every stakeholder at the commitment boundary — each for a different reason, each seeing a different face of the same gap.
Stop re-deciding what you already know
Your teams spend days reconstructing the reasoning behind past decisions. A pricing exception that was resolved six months ago comes up again and nobody can find the original rationale — so the same people spend the same time reaching the same conclusion. Or a different one, because the context has changed and nobody flagged that either.
When experienced people leave, their judgment walks out with them. Successors inherit responsibilities, portfolios, and process documentation — but not the reasoning that shaped how decisions were actually made. The institutional knowledge that turned a three-day deliberation into a thirty-minute call vanishes overnight.
The result is decision debt: a compounding tax on the organization where every similar case starts from scratch, every exception is re-litigated, and consistency depends on who happens to be in the room.
What changes with Ordinant
Re-litigating the same decision quarterly because nobody can find or trust the previous reasoning.
The previous decision is matched automatically — by structural applicability, not keyword search. If the scope contains and the rules are still in force, it binds. Re-litigation becomes lookup.
Institutional knowledge evaporating when key people transition.
Every well-formed decision is sealed at closure with its full reasoning: what evidence counted, which rules applied, who had authority. The judgment persists independent of the person who made it.
Inconsistency across teams because "how we decide" depends on who's deciding.
Decision procedures are explicit: same evidence requirements, same closure criteria, same authority rules — regardless of who's in the room. Consistency is structural, not cultural.
You're paying twice for every decision: once to decide, and again to re-decide when nobody can find the first one. Judgment should compound, not evaporate.
Pick one decision your team makes repeatedly — pricing, approvals, exceptions. We'll blueprint the decision procedure, precedent model, and execution boundary.
Start a ConversationLet your agents actually commit
Your AI can reason, draft, recommend, and synthesize better than most people on your team. But at the commitment boundary — the moment where a recommendation becomes an action, where money moves, access changes, or a promise gets made — everything stops. Not because the model can't think, but because nothing in the architecture tells it what it's allowed to do.
So you add human-in-the-loop as the brake. Every agent action gets routed to a person for approval — which defeats the point of automation and creates a bottleneck that scales linearly with agent deployment. The alternative is letting agents act without structural authorization, which works until the first unauthorized commitment hits production and nobody can explain why it was allowed.
The gap isn't intelligence. It's the absence of an authorization substrate that agents can operate within. Agents need scoped, time-bound, revocable authority — not unlimited permission and not a human approving every transaction.
What changes with Ordinant
Agents that advise but can't act, or act without structural authorization.
Agents propose within a decision procedure. Closure is deterministic. A closed decision mints a scoped, time-limited execution warrant. The agent acts within precise bounds — fast within scope, conservative outside it.
Human-in-the-loop on every action, destroying automation ROI.
Humans approve the logic — the decision procedure, the authority boundaries, the escalation rules. Agents execute within that structure. Human judgment is in the architecture, not in every transaction.
No way to prove what an agent was authorized to do after the fact.
Every agent action traces back to a sealed decision record, through a warrant, to a verifiable receipt. The provenance chain is structural and complete.
The human doesn't approve the transaction. The human approved the logic that permits the transaction. That's how authority scales.
Where are your agents hitting the commitment boundary? Bring one agent workflow and we'll blueprint the decision procedure and execution gate.
Start a ConversationRetrieve the why — don't reconstruct it
When an auditor asks "how was this decision made?", your team starts an archaeological dig. They assemble fragments from emails, Slack threads, meeting notes, and people's memories. They build a narrative that sounds coherent but is constructed weeks or months after the fact. The story may be accurate. It can't be verified.
Now multiply that by AI. Agents are entering decision workflows — investment committees, underwriting, compliance reviews, talent allocation. But without structural records of what was decided, under which rules, with what authority, the audit trail for an AI-augmented decision is worse than for a human one. At least with humans you could interview them. An agent's reasoning exists for the duration of the context window and then vanishes.
Regulatory pressure is accelerating. The EU AI Act demands explainability. APRA CPS 230 demands operational resilience. Emerging frameworks across jurisdictions all converge on the same requirement: prove how the decision was made, not just what was decided. You can't prove that with logs and screenshots.
What changes with Ordinant
Reconstructing decision reasoning from scattered artifacts, weeks after the fact.
The decision record is sealed at the moment of closure — capturing evidence, rules in force, authority, and closure criteria. Audit is retrieval, not reconstruction.
AI-augmented decisions with no structural accountability trail.
Every decision — human, AI, or hybrid — passes through the same procedure with the same closure requirements. The record doesn't care who proposed the answer. It cares that the procedure was satisfied.
Compliance as theater: screenshots, transcripts, post-hoc narratives.
Compliance by construction. The verifiable record exists because the decision closed — not because someone remembered to document it. If the decision was made, the evidence exists.
The regulator doesn't want to read the email. They want to see the rule that was applied, the evidence that was considered, and the authority that validated it.
Which decisions face the most regulatory scrutiny? We'll blueprint the decision procedure and evidence trail that satisfies audit by design.
Start a ConversationAuthorization that doesn't depend on identity
Your entire authorization model is built on one assumption: if you know who's asking, you can determine what they're allowed to do. RBAC, ABAC, zero trust, fine-grained authorization — every generation gets more precise about identity, but they all share the same foundation. Authorization scope is determined by who the requester is, not by what any specific decision authorized.
This creates a structural vulnerability that no amount of identity sophistication can fix. When credentials are compromised, the attacker inherits the full permission scope of that identity — every action the role permits, not just the actions that specific decisions have justified. The blast radius of a breach is determined by the breadth of the compromised role, not by what was actually decided.
With AI agents, this gets worse. Agents often operate with broad service credentials. A compromised agent credential doesn't just expose one user's permissions — it exposes every action the service account can take. And unlike a human, an agent can exercise that entire permission scope in seconds.
What changes with Ordinant
Authorization derived from identity — credential compromise inherits full permission scope.
Authorization derived from decisions. Each execution warrant authorizes exactly one action with exact parameters. Credential theft is irrelevant when identity isn't in the authorization path.
Blast radius determined by role breadth — a compromised admin credential is catastrophic.
Blast radius bounded to outstanding warrants. A compromised component can only exercise rights that specific decisions have already authorized for specific parameters. No lateral movement.
Agents with broad service credentials and no structural constraint on action scope.
Structural separation between reasoning and execution. No direct path from analysis to side effects. The warrant is the sole bridge — scoped, time-limited, single-use, verifiable.
The system doesn't ask "does this person have permission to do things of this type?" It asks "did a specific decision authorize this specific action with these specific parameters?" That's a categorically different security model.
Where are your highest-risk authorization boundaries? Bring one — privileged access, agent credentials, break-glass — and we'll blueprint decision-derived authorization.
Start a ConversationJudgment that compounds across your organization
AI is commoditizing everything above the infrastructure layer. Every organization will soon have access to the same models, the same tools, the same interfaces. When reasoning is cheap and universally available, having good AI isn't a differentiator. Having good judgment — proprietary, compounding, institutional — is.
But judgment today is trapped in people. In the senior partner who knows why the 2019 deal structure worked. In the compliance officer who remembers which exception was granted and under what conditions. In the engineer who knows which production changes need extra scrutiny even though the checklist doesn't say so. When those people leave, retire, or simply have a bad day, the judgment is gone.
The organizations that built real infrastructure for the last technology wave — compute, data, payments — didn't just survive the AI transition. They grew. Because when everything above infrastructure gets commoditized, the infrastructure layer becomes more valuable, not less. The decision layer is the next missing primitive in that stack.
What changes with Ordinant
Organizational judgment is a depreciating asset — it exists in people's heads and erodes with every departure.
Organizational judgment is an appreciating asset. Every well-formed decision becomes precedent that the next decision can build on. The thousandth decision is faster and better than the first.
AI makes your organization faster at doing what it already does — including making the same mistakes.
AI operates within judgment infrastructure that improves with every decision. Speed and quality compound together because the substrate gets better, not just the tools.
Governance is a cost center — a tax on speed that nobody wants to fund.
Governance is a structural property of well-formed decisions. It doesn't cost extra and it doesn't slow things down. Speed comes from decisions you can trust.
Technology waves amplify infrastructure and commoditize everything above it. The decision primitive is missing from the stack. The organizations that build it become the infrastructure the next decade runs on.
Which strategic decisions define your organization? We'll show you what it looks like when judgment compounds instead of evaporating.
Start a ConversationPick one commitment boundary.
We'll blueprint it.
A Decision Infrastructure Blueprint Sprint produces the complete decision architecture for one decision class: the procedure, the precedent model, and the execution boundary. In weeks, not months.
Where does your organization make irreversible commitments — money, legal obligations, access grants, production changes?
Start there →