HC HeartCore Ventures Commercial venture house Discuss a workflow

Agentic Workflow Forensics consulting

Can you reconstruct what your AI agents did?

We reconstruct AI-agent workflows across objective, scope, source state, verification, stop conditions, evidence, downstream reliance, and recovery. The result is a decision-ready account of what the evidence establishes, where it breaks, and which control surface requires repair.

Discuss a workflow Read the field definition Use SCOPA free

The first question is the decision the evidence must improve. If the proposed review cannot change a real deployment, reliance, containment, attribution, or remediation decision, we narrow it or do not sell it.

Reconstruction standard Finding = material question + evidence + limitation + decision consequence
established limited contradicted not established

No aggregate readiness score conceals a blocking evidence gap.

Decision firstName the decision before collecting evidence
Eight surfacesDiagnose the exact workflow boundary
Claim boundedUnknown remains unknown
Client operableYour team keeps the resulting control system
The reconstructability gap

A team can know an agent failed and still be unable to establish what happened.

Traces may show tool calls without authority. Tests may pass without proving the task. Incident tickets may record harm without preserving source state, reliance, or recovery. The audit tests the complete workflow trajectory rather than treating the final output as the whole event.

The agent reported completion, but no one can establish whether the substantive obligation was performed.
A workflow has extensive logs, but the logs do not preserve authorization, source-of-truth identity, or reviewer reliance.
A support or policy answer became a customer commitment without a governed handoff.
An incident was contained, but affected users, records, or systems cannot be identified and corrected.
Leadership needs a defensible account, while the available evidence supports only part of the story.
Eight control surfaces

Name the exact surface where governance or reconstruction breaks.

Each surface can be reviewed independently. A team does not need a full framework installation when one missing surface controls the material decision.

01

Objective

What was the agent supposed to do, and did it preserve that task?

02

Scope

What could it touch, change, advise, represent, or commit?

03

State

What authoritative source governed the action?

04

Verification

What proved the material obligation was satisfied?

05

Stop condition

When did the workflow have to suspend or escalate?

06

Evidence

What preserved records establish the trajectory?

07

Handoff / reliance

Who or what received and acted on the result?

08

Recovery

How could error or harm be corrected and repaired?

Engagement paths

Start at the smallest scope that can change the decision.

Scope and commercial terms are fixed only after the workflow, evidence access, custody requirements, and decision burden are known.

Path 1

Single-Surface Audit

Review one known risk such as source binding, stop conditions, tool scope, evidence sufficiency, handoff, recovery, or false-green completion.

Focused determination, blocking gaps, and remediation actions.
Path 2

Workflow Reconstructability Audit

Assess one complete AI-mediated workflow across all eight control surfaces before deployment or scale.

Control Surface Map, determination, evidence register, and remediation roadmap.
Path 3

Incident Reconstruction

Apply the Agentic Reconstruction Method after an incident, near miss, dispute, or unexplained workflow failure.

Behavioral trajectory, evidence inventory, attribution boundary, and recovery assessment.
Path 4

Continuity Implementation

Install forward controls using CGP-compatible or Next-Prompt-compatible structures where the findings support implementation.

Objective, state, verification, stop, evidence, handoff, and recovery controls your team can operate.
Decision-ready outputs

The engagement produces evidence your team can continue using.

What the service establishes

A bounded determination, not manufactured confidence.

  • Which material claims the evidence supports
  • Which claims remain limited, contradicted, or not established
  • Where attribution breaks
  • What the gap means for a real decision
  • Which control surface should be repaired first
What it does not establish

No safety, compliance, certification, or future-performance claim.

Reconstructability is not proof that a workflow was safe, lawful, ethical, or adequately governed. A control can exist without proving a particular event, and a reconstructable event can reveal that the control failed. Findings remain tied to the declared evidence, workflow, time period, and decision.

Complete free value first

Use SCOPA locally without an account or consultation.

SCOPA is the Heart AI Foundation's open-source, local-first boundary runtime. It provides a complete result without telemetry, lead capture, a hosted dashboard, or a paid truth source. Consultation begins only when the problem crosses repositories, teams, authority owners, evidence-custody systems, or sustained assurance operations.

Open SCOPA Read the open field definition
No accountLocal-first use No telemetryYour run is not a lead No paid truth sourceFree result remains complete
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is an Agent Workflow Reconstructability Audit?

It is a structured assessment of whether preserved evidence can establish what an agent was supposed to do, what it did, what authority and source state governed it, what verification occurred, who relied on the result, and how recovery happened.

Is this the same as AI-agent observability?

No. Observability exposes runtime signals. Reconstructability asks whether those and other records can establish the material trajectory, authority, reliance, attribution boundary, and recovery consequence.

Does the audit produce a score?

No aggregate readiness score is used. Material questions receive criterion-level findings so one missing control or evidence source cannot be concealed by stronger unrelated surfaces.

Has the complete determination been empirically validated?

No such claim is made. The prospective Foundation experiment is in preparation, confirmatory execution is not authorized, and no confirmatory data have been collected. Consulting deliverables are bounded to the evidence reviewed, not to an uncompleted validation study.

Can we use SCOPA without hiring HeartCore Ventures?

Yes. The public tool and methodology remain complete without consultation. HeartCore sells organizational analysis, implementation, training, evidence-custody design, and ongoing assurance expertise.

Is HeartCore the certifying body?

No. HeartCore Ventures is a separate commercial company. It does not issue Foundation certification, HVC credentials, Guardian approval, or a claim of HEART compliance.

Consultation

Bring one workflow and one decision.

Tell us what the agent does, who relies on it, what evidence exists, and which decision you cannot yet defend. We will identify whether the right next step is a single-surface review, a full audit, incident reconstruction, implementation, or no engagement.

Discuss a workflow

Initial inquiry only. Do not send credentials, secrets, personal data, or incident evidence until a reviewed intake and transfer method exists.

Institutional boundary

Open Foundation field. Separate commercial practice.

Dylan D. Mobley authored Agentic Workflow Forensics and founded both the Heart AI Foundation and HeartCore Ventures LLC. The Foundation maintains the public-interest field definition, research status, and open infrastructure. HeartCore provides optional commercial services. The Foundation does not grant HeartCore exclusive vendor status, and commercial engagement does not create certification, endorsement, or a favorable research finding.