Enterprises are racing to put AI agents into production. Most do not get there. The model is rarely the blocker. The blocker is that once an agent can take an action, no one can prove which agent took which action, on whose behalf, against which system, and under what authority.
Four questions every action raises
When an agent sends, purchases, files, routes, approves, or executes, the organization must be able to answer four things: who approved it, why it was allowed, what evidence supported it, and what changed afterward. Most agent stacks cannot answer any of them cleanly. Until they can, security and compliance correctly refuse to let the agent leave the pilot.
Why a gateway is not enough
The common answer is to route agent traffic through a gateway. A gateway moves traffic. It does not decide whether an action was authorized, it does not enforce the boundary of what a given agent may do on behalf of a given user, and it does not leave a durable, independent record of the action. Routing is not control.
What control actually requires
Control means three things working together. First, separate the proposal from the action, so nothing consequential runs on capability alone. Second, authorize at the moment of execution, from a named accountable person or a scoped policy that person can revoke. Third, record every authorized action in a log that is tamper-evident and verifiable later without trusting the vendor that produced it.
The durable part
Authorization gets an agent into production. Proof keeps it there. The record Logos produces is hash-chained, attributes human and AI contribution separately, and can be verified offline by an auditor, a customer, or a regulator with no dependency on Perasys Labs. That is the difference between an agent you can deploy and an agent you can defend.