ServicesPricingInsightsReadiness ScenariosResourcesAboutContact
Agent Forensics · In Development

AgentAutopsy

Reconstruct what the agent actually did.

An independent, evidence-centered investigation engine being built for incidents involving autonomous and agentic AI systems.

Assess Your Evidence Readiness Discuss a Design Partnership

The Investigative Gap

Traditional logs preserve fragments. Investigators need the chain.

AI agents can authenticate to systems, retrieve sensitive information, invoke tools, modify records, communicate externally, and trigger downstream agents. When something goes wrong, the central question is no longer only what the model said. It is whether the organization can reconstruct the complete sequence of action.

Evidence may be scattered across model providers, identity platforms, agent frameworks, tool gateways, cloud services, SaaS applications, and the business systems the agent touched. AgentAutopsy is being designed to correlate those fragments without pretending incomplete evidence is certainty.

The questions AgentAutopsy is built to answer

  • Which human or non-human identity initiated the activity?
  • What prompt, context, or upstream event influenced the action?
  • Which tools, systems, and data did the agent access?
  • What did it read, change, transmit, or trigger?
  • Which downstream agents or services acted next?
  • What can the evidence prove, and where are the gaps?
The Evidence Model

Agent Action Event (AAE)

AAE is the developing common evidence model behind AgentAutopsy:

Identity → Context → Tool Invocation → Target System → Data Interaction → Outcome → Downstream Effect

Each normalized event also carries source provenance, collection time, schema version, integrity metadata, and an evidence hash. The objective is a consistent investigative language across otherwise disconnected platforms.

Product Direction

Forensic soundness before feature volume.

Evidence integrity

Content-addressed artifacts, cryptographic hashing, an append-only examiner ledger, and verifiable case exports support chain of custody by construction.

Defensible reconstruction

Identity resolution, session stitching, causal chaining, blast-radius analysis, and explicit High/Medium/Low reconstruction confidence with the reason shown.

Reports tied to evidence

Executive narratives, technical timelines, and regulatory reporting generated from a common case file, with claims linked back to underlying evidence records.

The evidence and causal layers are intended to be deterministic and defensible without a generative model establishing investigative facts. Any model-assisted narrative drafting remains optional and segregated from the evidentiary chain.

Available Now

AI Agent Incident Readiness Assessment

The ability to investigate an agent incident depends on evidence that must exist before the incident begins.

RedCon1 Response evaluates your current logging, identity, audit, retention, and evidence-preservation capabilities against the developing AAE framework. The engagement identifies which investigative questions your current telemetry can answer, which it cannot, and what must change.

$7,500–$15,000

Final scope depends on the number of agent systems, environments, model providers, tool integrations, identity sources, and enterprise applications reviewed.

Discuss the Assessment

You receive

  • AI-agent evidence coverage map
  • AAE field-coverage analysis by source
  • Forensic reconstruction readiness score
  • Prioritized evidence-gap register
  • Identification of questions current telemetry cannot answer
  • Remediation roadmap for logging, retention, attribution, and integrity
  • Executive findings briefing

Build the evidence before you need the investigation.

Organizations should not discover after an AI incident that the evidence required to understand it was never collected.

View the Readiness Assessment Discuss AgentAutopsy