Scope it, approve it, pull it, seal it. A named investigation lead defines the case, agent and time window; a record custodian approves the request; the export pulls every verdict with the bounds, certificate and sources in force at the time; and the copy is sealed with a manifest so anyone can later prove it was not changed.
What is a verdict record export, and who owns it?
A verdict is the platform's decision on one attempted action: allowed, held, refused or withheld, with the bound that decided it. The verdict record is the sequence of those decisions. An investigation needs a copy of part of it, taken out of the live system, that stands on its own as evidence.
Three people are involved. The investigation lead owns the question and the scope. The record custodian, usually in risk, compliance or internal audit, owns the record and approves who may take a copy. The data protection lead checks that the export contains no more personal data than the investigation needs. An agent can help assemble the export, but only at read, and it may not decide what is in or out.
How do you export the record, step by step?
- Person, investigation lead: writes the scope. Which case or cases, which agents, which capabilities, which time window, and the question being asked. "Why was this payment released on this date" is a scope. "Everything about the payments agent" is not.
- Person, record custodian: approves or narrows the request. The approval is itself filed, with the scope attached. Evidence: an access entry naming the requester, approver and scope.
- Agent, depth 1: assembles a draft index. It lists every verdict in scope, with the action, the deciding bound and the time. It reads; it changes nothing. Evidence: the index and the query that produced it.
- Person, investigation lead: checks the index for gaps. Look for actions on the case that have no verdict. A gap is either a bypass or a scoping mistake, and both matter.
- Platform: pulls each verdict with its context. For each one: the bound versions in force, the certificate and its date, the sources with their provenance, any held item and who decided it, and the agent's stated reasons. Evidence: an export manifest listing every record and its identifier.
- Person, data protection lead: reviews personal data. Remove or mask what the question does not need. Record what was masked and why. Evidence: a redaction log.
- Platform: seals the export. Each file gets a checksum and the manifest is signed, so later changes are detectable. Evidence: the sealed manifest.
- Platform: files the export as an event. The live record shows that a copy was taken, by whom, for what. Evidence: an export entry in the append-only record.
| Step | The agent does | Depth | Stays with a person |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | Nothing | none | Investigation lead writes the question |
| Approve | Nothing | none | Custodian approves or narrows |
| Index | Lists verdicts in scope | 1 | Lead checks for gaps |
| Pull context | Nothing; the platform retrieves | none | Nothing |
| Redact | May flag personal fields | 1 | Data protection lead decides what to mask |
| Seal and file | Nothing | none | Custodian holds the sealed copy |
Which controls protect the export, and what evidence do they leave?
The source is append-only. An export is only as trustworthy as the record it came from. If entries can be edited or deleted, nobody can rely on the copy. The case for this is made in why the agent record must be append-only. Evidence: the record's own integrity checks, included in the manifest.
Context at the time, not now. The bound that decided a verdict months ago may have changed since. The export must carry the version in force at the moment of the action. Evidence: bound version identifiers on each verdict.
Separation of duties. The person under investigation, or the team that built the agent, should not run or approve the export. Evidence: the identities on the access and export entries.
Minimum personal data. GDPR's principles of purpose limitation and data minimisation apply to copies as much as to the live system. Evidence: the redaction log.
Chain of custody. Every hand-off of the sealed copy is noted. Evidence: a custody log kept with the export.
What should you measure?
- Time from request to sealed export. Investigations stall on slow evidence.
- Gaps found at step 4. Any action without a verdict should be treated as an incident in its own right.
- Exports per agent. Repeated investigations into one agent say something about its brief or its bounds.
- Re-requests: exports that had to be redone because the scope was wrong.
Where does an export usually go wrong?
The export shows outcomes, not reasons. A list of "allowed" verdicts tells an investigator what happened, not why. Without the deciding bound, the sources and the agent's stated reasons, the investigator is guessing. Auditors will ask for the verdict record in this form; investigators need the same.
Current configuration is exported instead of historic. The investigator sees today's limits and concludes the agent breached them.
Logs from three systems are stitched together by hand. Times drift, identifiers do not match, and the result is arguable. One record with one clock avoids this.
Over-collection. A broad scope pulls in thousands of unrelated customers' data. Narrow the scope at step 2, not after the fact.
The agent is asked to summarise its own conduct. An agent may index and fetch. It should not interpret the evidence about itself. For the wider question of agents in investigations, see whether an AI agent can run a fraud investigation.
Where Pryme fits
Pryme files every verdict, including the deciding bound, the certificate in force and the provenance of each source, in an append-only record. That makes an investigation export a retrieval rather than a reconstruction. The governed agentic operating system guide shows how the record relates to enforcement and certification.
Questions people ask
Can an export be shared with a regulator or an outside investigator?
Yes, once the custodian approves it and the data protection lead has reviewed it. The sealed manifest lets the recipient check that nothing was altered after the export.
Should allowed verdicts be included, or only refusals?
Both. Many investigations turn on an action that was allowed and should not have been, which only shows up in the allowed verdicts and their reasons.
How far back can you export?
As far as your retention period for the record. Set that period with your legal and compliance teams before you need it, not during an investigation.