Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 APRIL 2026

Governing AI That Acts, Part 2: Control In Name Only

Jones Walker LLP
Jones Walker LLP
Contributor
Jones Walker LLP

Jones Walker LLP

Jones Walker LLP is among the 140 largest law firms in the United States serving local, regional,...

View firm profile
Explore more from Jones Walker LLP

Part 1 of this series named three failure modes: automation bias, behavioral drift, and the audit illusion. And it closed with a question: can the humans responsible for agentic systems actually intervene when something goes wrong? This part is the answer.

United StatesTechnology

Key Takeaways

  • Organizations that have governance frameworks for AI content are systematically unprepared for governance of AI action. The failure modes are different, the oversight structures are different, and the legal exposure when things go wrong is significantly increased.
  • Automation bias is a governance problem, not a UX quirk. It requires structural intervention such as randomized sampling, adversarial audits, and defined stop protocols. Training memos telling people to "review carefully" are theater.
  • Behavioral drift is distinct from discrete software bugs. Agents may not fail visibly, but instead gradually pursue their objectives through unintended means. Detecting it requires tracking behavioral patterns over time, not auditing individual actions.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from