Sub-function
Global Process Ownership
Owns process standard work end to end inside AI GBS & Global Business Services. Runs 3 lines across 19 stations, drains the repeatable share into no shared tower, and holds 3 human gates.
Estate rating
BBB
74 / 100
Mining and variant detection are agentic. Mandating one global process overrides local judgment across jurisdictions and needs a human process owner to carry it.
Agents
10
Lines
3
Units / wk
106
Timetable vs actual
5.3d → 5.5d
Cost / unit
$391
was $874
Run-rate saving
$2.7M
annualized at this volume
The 10 agents running this sub-function
Grouped by what they are for, not by where they sit. The agent org is process-shaped.
Process Ownership Orchestrator
Owns the global process ownership lane end to end. Sequences the other agents, holds the timetable, and decides what surfaces to a human.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates to Global Process Owner when the unit falls outside the decision envelope or confidence drops below the floor.
Process Model Agent
Executes the global process ownership step it owns, posts its evidence, and hands the unit to the next stage.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates to Global Process Owner when the unit falls outside the decision envelope or confidence drops below the floor.
Compliance Mapping Agent
Executes the global process ownership step it owns, posts its evidence, and hands the unit to the next stage.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates to Global Process Owner when the unit falls outside the decision envelope or confidence drops below the floor.
Variant Detection Agent
Watches global process ownership continuously. Detects drift, quantifies it, and routes what matters without waiting for a reporting cycle.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates to Global Process Owner when the unit falls outside the decision envelope or confidence drops below the floor.
Process Mining Agent
Watches global process ownership continuously. Detects drift, quantifies it, and routes what matters without waiting for a reporting cycle.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates to Global Process Owner when the unit falls outside the decision envelope or confidence drops below the floor.
Standardization Agent
Authors positions on global process ownership. Frames the question, models the options, and writes a recommendation a human can ratify or reject.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates when two options sit inside the confidence band and the evidence cannot separate them.
Process Doctrine Agent
Authors positions on global process ownership. Frames the question, models the options, and writes a recommendation a human can ratify or reject.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates when two options sit inside the confidence band and the evidence cannot separate them.
Control Design Agent
Holds the rules that bind every other agent in global process ownership. Versions them, tests them against live decisions, and blocks work that breaches them.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates on any decision that would breach a live policy version, with the clause cited.
Process Policy Agent
Holds the rules that bind every other agent in global process ownership. Versions them, tests them against live decisions, and blocks work that breaches them.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates on any decision that would breach a live policy version, with the clause cited.
Global Process Ownership Challenger Agent
Adversarial reviewer for global process ownership. Argues the opposite case on every position and flags where the evidence does not carry the claim.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates when a ratified position is still running against a break condition it flagged.
Estate rating breakdown
Seven control dimensions. Judgment readiness runs against autonomy on purpose.
People
What the humans stopped doing, and what they do now.
Redeployed into scenario work and strategy authoring review.
Lines running in this sub-function
Each line is a workflow. Click a line to walk it station by station.
Strategy positions this sub-function holds
An agent that only executes is a robot. These are the calls it made, the argument against each one, and what would prove it wrong.
Global Process Design Position
Supersededv3Which parts of global process ownership should deliberately stay human, and how do we defend that against a cost argument?
Hold the ceiling at A2 for global process ownership. Mining and variant detection are agentic. Mandating one global process overrides local judgment across jurisdictions and needs a human process owner to carry it. Raise it only after two consecutive quarters where the override rate stays under five percent and every override has a written cause.
confidence
80%
The challenge — Global Process Ownership Challenger Agent
Global Process Ownership Challenger Agent argues the recommendation leans on 2 quarters of data from a period with no volume shock. The confidence band overlaps the alternative, and the position does not say what it would take to be wrong. Recorded as a dissent, not a block.
Break conditions
- ·Override rate rises above 7 percent for two consecutive months
- ·Cost per process standard stops falling while volume keeps rising
- ·A control failure in this lane reaches a customer or a regulator
Evidence gaps
- ·No external comparator on a like-for-like unit definition
- ·Exception cases under $22k are sampled, not fully measured
| Alternative considered | Cost | Risk | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hold the current position | $464k run rate | Known and priced. Cedes ground if comparators move faster. | live |
| Raise the ceiling one level now | $468k to build controls | Override rate is 14 percent; raising the ceiling before that settles imports the error into production. | rejected on evidence |
| Move the exception tail to the spine | $228k transition | Loses local context. Rework risk on the cases that are hardest to recover. | under review |
Global Process Ownership Operating Position
In challengev3Where should the autonomy ceiling for global process ownership sit over the next four quarters, and what evidence would justify moving it?
Keep the repeatable process standard volume in the spine and pull the exception tail back into the function. The spine is cheaper per unit; the tail is where the context that prevents rework actually sits.
confidence
69%
The challenge — Global Process Ownership Challenger Agent
Global Process Ownership Challenger Agent argues the recommendation leans on 5 quarters of data from a period with no volume shock. The confidence band overlaps the alternative, and the position does not say what it would take to be wrong. Recorded as a dissent, not a block.
Break conditions
- ·Override rate rises above 12 percent for two consecutive months
- ·Cost per process standard stops falling while volume keeps rising
- ·A comparator publishes a materially lower unit cost on a like-for-like basis
Evidence gaps
- ·No independent test of the control evidence behind the touchless rate
| Alternative considered | Cost | Risk | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hold the current position | $631k run rate | Known and priced. Cedes ground if comparators move faster. | live |
| Raise the ceiling one level now | $491k to build controls | Override rate is 12 percent; raising the ceiling before that settles imports the error into production. | rejected on evidence |
| Move the exception tail to the spine | $295k transition | Loses local context. Rework risk on the cases that are hardest to recover. | under review |
Policy register
The rules the agents above are bound by. Version, owner, approver, and the agents each rule constrains.
| Ref | Rule | Scope | Owner agent | Approved by | Version | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GB6-POL-200 | Global Process Ownership Decision Envelope Agents in this lane may act without a human when the process standard sits inside the stated value, risk and confidence envelope. Outside it, the unit holds at a gate with a named approver and a running clock. binds 2 agents · US · Canada | envelope | Control Design Agent | Global Process Owner | v4.4 | Active |
| GB6-POL-201 | Global Process Ownership Evidence Standard Every autonomous decision writes inputs, the rule version applied, the model and prompt version, the output and a reversal path. An action with no evidence record is treated as a control failure, not a fast decision. binds 2 agents · APAC | evidence | Control Design Agent | Global Process Owner | v3.4 | Active |