# Uncertain agent action — investigation record

**Rethinking Agents · v0.1 · 2026-09-22 · Unvalidated aid**

Use with [the worked timeline](https://rethinkingagents.com/resources/uncertain-agent-action). Complete locally. Do not upload private traces, customer content, credentials or internal architecture. This record does not run checks or authorize recovery.

## Establish the question

- Intended useful outcome, exact operation and permitted recipient/visibility:
- Workflow/client/model/tool versions and relevant configuration revision:
- Logical operation reference (not a secret); distinct attempt references:
- Expected result; actual local response; first point of uncertainty:
- Evidence actually inspected, where it is kept, and observation time:
- Which facts are observed / reported / inferred / unknown:

## Keep attempts and effects separate

| Attempt + time | Actor / receiver / operation reference | Payload revision | Local response | Receiver effect + evidence | Uncertainty |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NOT RUN / unknown | | | | Unknown | |

- Does the receiver recognize the same logical operation across attempts?
- What are its documented deduplication scope, retention and payload-change rules?
- Are concurrency and downstream effects covered? What has actually been tested?
- Can an authorized lookup correlate the exact operation with an external result?
- Could lookup visibility, delay, another writer or a partial failure mislead us?
- Record first-attempt outcome, eventual outcome, total attempts, elapsed time, known charges and human interventions separately. A successful retry does not erase an earlier failure.

## Bound the next action

- Current decision: **UNRESOLVED** / completed with evidence / authorized retry / separately authorized compensation / manual investigation.
- Evidence and authority required for the selected next step:
- Permitted fallback, maximum attempts/time and stopping condition:
- Who may approve scope expansion, and what invalidates earlier approval:
- Recovery owner, next check and review time:

Compensation is another action with its own effects and authority requirements. Do not assume it reverses every consequence. A local trace or worksheet alone cannot establish remote state.

## Public-safe example — entirely fictional, NOT RUN

The task is to append one approved note to private ticket T-17. Attempt A submits operation O-17. The receiver commits, but its response is lost. The caller only observes a timeout. Its external outcome remains unknown until evidence changes that judgment. A retry under a new operation identity could append twice.

If an authorized, sufficiently current receiver lookup correlates O-17 with that exact note, record completion without another append. If no adequate lookup or applicable receiver contract is available, keep the outcome unresolved for the named recovery owner. A local draft is permitted; switching account, installing a connector or emailing the note requires a new decision.

To describe your own issue publicly, recreate the minimum behavior with synthetic names/data and state what was omitted. Include intended task, versions, expected result, actual observation, missing evidence and a reproduction only if you actually ran it. Clearly label a hypothetical sequence. Redaction does not guarantee a production trace is safe to share; avoid copying one into a public report.

## Sources

- Malcolm Featonby, AWS Builders' Library, [Making retries safe with idempotent APIs](https://aws.amazon.com/builders-library/making-retries-safe-with-idempotent-APIs/). Publication date not established; checked 2026-09-22. Primary engineering explanation of ambiguity, caller request identifiers and changed intent; no guarantee for an arbitrary receiver.
- rune0-dev, [agent-ledger README](https://github.com/rune0-dev/agent-ledger). Moving documentation, publication date not established; checked 2026-09-22. Supplier-described execution contract and downstream limitations, not independently tested here.

The record and timeline are RA proposals. No incident, security test, usability result or time saving is claimed.