Your agents already make consequential decisions — claims approved, suppliers qualified, releases shipped. Each one can authenticate, call the right tools, stay inside policy — and still decide on the wrong basis. Steward verifies whether each proposed action is supported by the evidence, context, and factors your organization expects — before it commits.
The fraud score is low. Steward asks: low based on what?
The problem is rarely missing data. It's that the agent didn't know what mattered for this decision.
Steward does not replace orchestration, policy, evaluation, or observability. It adds the decision-basis check most stacks were not designed to verify — at the moment an agent is about to act. Not a missing feature in one layer: a missing layer.
Harnesses help the agent act. Steward helps your organization decide whether the agent has earned autonomy for this decision. Put simply: your stack verifies execution correctness — Steward verifies decision adequacy, against the standard you endorsed.
Steward doesn't just reduce risk — it increases the autonomy you can safely absorb. Delegation grows; consequence doesn't. Review scales with the second, not the first.
Every decision scored against your endorsed criteria — with what was never considered, named in plain language, before action.
Sound decisions proceed with a record. The few that genuinely need judgment reach a human. Review scales with consequence, not volume.
A decision ledger your auditors and regulators can stand on: what was verified, what was flagged, who set the standard — and which version of the standard applied.
Policies, decision-making frameworks, playbooks, audit findings, expert practice, and the goals of your agents already contain what a competent decision must weigh. Steward turns them into a Blueprint — an editable, versioned graph of expected evidence, criteria, and escalation logic for one class of decisions.
Policies, playbooks, previous reviews — plus what the agent is for and what systems it can reach.
Scattered inputs become a clear, reviewable picture of what this decision class must consider.
Decision owners adjust, approve, and put their name on the standard before it goes active.
Live or historical decisions are checked against the endorsed Blueprint — and gaps are flagged before actions commit.
Enforcement today is binary — allow or block, all or nothing. But consequence isn't binary, and neither is the right response. Steward intervenes in proportion: sound decisions proceed with a record, and everything else gets exactly the friction its consequences deserve.
Sufficient basis — act, on the record.
Pull the missing evidence or context before acting.
Act — but only with added requirements attached.
Limit scope, rate, or budget while questions stand.
A human with the right ownership decides.
Stop before commit — the last resort, not the only tool.
Configurable per decision class, per consequence level — quarantine, delayed execution, rate limiting, and token-budget shrinkage among the options. And the spectrum is mode-aware: in observe and monitor, the same verdicts arrive as findings; in enforce, they act.
The obvious worry: "isn't this just an LLM approving whatever looks plausible?" It isn't — because Steward has no opinion of its own to apply. It verifies each decision against the standard your organization endorsed — however unusual your rules — and nothing else.
We test the verifier continuously — many runs, many controls. The most extreme one: a Blueprint with deliberately absurd rules — screen triage patients for alien abduction. The agent worked competently and never asked about it. Steward flagged exactly that gap. Judgment is decided, not discovered.
✕ intergalactic_infection_screening · NOT CONSIDERED ✕ no_government_conspiracy_involvement · NOT CONSIDEREDYou don't choose between "no integration" and "deep integration." Steward runs in three modes on the same Blueprint — start by watching, enforce when the evidence says you should.
Real or historical decision traces checked against your Blueprint. No agent rewrite, nothing touches production. This is the six-week pilot — and it already produces the gap report.
The Steward SDK wraps your agent with lightweight hooks: every live decision is checked as it happens and written to the decision ledger. Full visibility, no behavior change.
The same checks now act on the decision path — from proceed to enrich to block, proportionate to consequence, before anything commits. Run it in front of your agents or beside them.
No. A Blueprint is a versioned, editable graph, not a frozen document. Steward stays connected to the sources it was built from — policies, playbooks, databases — surfaces what changed, and drafts the update. Your decision owners adjust and re-endorse. Past decisions stay defensible against the version that was active at the time.
Scrutiny is tunable per decision class: checks can be weighted, relaxed, or removed, and Steward learns from what your reviewers actually escalate or wave through. But learned adjustments never silently relax the standard — they arrive as proposed Blueprint changes, and any change returns the Blueprint to draft until the owner re-endorses it. Human review concentrates where consequence lives, not on volume.
Where the basis is clear, Steward verifies it. Where it's ambiguous or opaque, that itself becomes a finding: Steward surfaces the ambiguity and asks for clarification or evidence before the action commits. Opacity is flagged — never silently passed.
Observe mode needs none — we run against real or historical traces. Monitoring adds the SDK wrapper and hooks around your existing agent. Enforcement can run as a gateway in front of actions or as a sidecar beside the agent — and other configurations are possible. Same Blueprint at every depth — no agent rewrite, no stack migration.
A Blueprint is specific to a decision class. A claims decision, a supplier review, and a deployment approval each require different evidence and different escalation logic — not one flat ruleset applied to everything.
A scoped test, not a migration. Six weeks, one workflow, no agent rewrite — and a gap report that tells you whether Steward surfaces decision-basis gaps your current tooling does not catch. Either answer is worth having.
Observe mode runs on exported traces you select — no system access, nothing touches production. Your data is used only to run the checks against your Blueprint, and it's deleted when the pilot ends. MeaningStack is a Dutch B.V.; processing terms are covered by our DPA — and for a pilot, we're happy to work on your paper, not ours. Where data is processed and which model providers sit underneath: ask on the call. You'll get specifics, not marketing.
Claims, supplier onboarding, deployments — one place where agents act, consequences are real, and review is the bottleneck.
Steward drafts what every decision in this class must consider — from your policies and playbooks, in minutes. Your expert adjusts it; a named owner signs off.
Real or historical decisions, observe-mode only. You get the gap report: what your existing tooling never saw.
Closes with recommendations: Blueprint refinements, scrutiny levels per decision class, and where monitor or enforce mode would pay first.
No agent rewrite. No integration to start. The pilot runs in observe mode — and when you're ready, the same Blueprint moves to monitor and enforce — interventions proportionate to consequence, before actions commit.
Three founding partners — selected, not open enrolment. Founding terms and conversion pricing agreed upfront, before anything starts. You leave knowing whether the gap is real in your world. Either answer is worth having.
"The workflow ran correctly" is no longer mistaken for "the decision was sound."
Tell us where your agents decide today. We'll set up a short call and see what a six-week test would look like on your workflow. You'll speak directly with Luciana Ledesma, MeaningStack's CEO.
Running agents in production already? Reply and say so — we'll fast-track the call.
