Overview
This is a conceptual, theory-driven analysis that synthesizes literature to propose measurement and governance directions; empirical validation is needed.
Citations2
Evidence Strength0.60
Confidence0.85
Risk Signals9
Trust Signals
Findings with numeric evidence: 0/4
Findings with evidence refs: 4/4
Results with explicit delta: 0/0
Reproducibility
Status: No open assets linked
Open source: Unknown
At A Glance
Cost impact: 60%
Production readiness: 30%
Novelty: 70%
Why It Matters For Business
Agentic AI can change behavior and priorities after deployment; firms must monitor intermediate commitments, add decision checkpoints, and align incentives so automation doesn't drift from strategic goals.
Who Should Care
Summary TLDR
The paper argues that ‘agentic’ AI—systems that plan, act, and revise objectives over time—creates three structural uncertainties (trajectory, epistemic, regime) that strain classical human-AI teaming assumptions. It extends Team Situation Awareness (Team SA: perception, comprehension, projection) to cover both humans and agentic systems, and shows that iterative updating, trust, and shared awareness can fail or reverse under open-ended agency. The authors propose operationalizing AI-side awareness, elevating "projection congruence" (aligned expectations about futures and value weightings), and adding institutional controls (checkpoints, authority design, incentive alignment).
Problem Statement
Human-AI teaming assumes systems are task-bounded, predictable, and stationary. Agentic AI can plan across steps, generate contested outputs, and change objectives over time. That creates trajectory, epistemic, and regime uncertainty that break the stabilizing assumptions of Team Situation Awareness and demand new measurement, governance, and research agendas.
Main Contribution
Characterizes three forms of open-ended agency: trajectory, epistemic, and regime uncertainty.
Extends Team Situation Awareness to treat AI as an observable awareness system across perception, comprehension, and projection.
Key Findings
Agentic AI creates three structural uncertainties—action trajectories, generative outputs, and evolving objectives—that differ qualitatively from task-bound systems.
Team SA's three levels (perception, comprehension, projection) remain useful but must be reconceptualized for both humans and AI under open-ended agency.
What To Try In 7 Days
Map long-running workflows to identify where agents can make multi-step commitments.
Instrument agent outputs to log intermediate subgoals and revision events.
Add a manual re-authorization checkpoint for any plan extension beyond initial scope.
Agent Features
Memory
Planning
Tool Use
Frameworks
Is Agentic
Yes
Architectures
Collaboration
Reproducibility
Risks & Boundaries
Limitations
Conceptual commentary without new empirical experiments or quantitative results.
Focuses on the human-agent dyad; multi-agent and organizational scaling effects are not empirically explored.
When Not To Use
For narrowly scoped, deterministic tools with no multi-step autonomy.
When empirical parameter tuning or benchmarking of agent performance is the primary goal.
Failure Modes
Oversight decoupling: outputs appear aligned while underlying policies drift.
Projection drift: human and agent forecasts diverge over time causing unexpected actions.