SEE IT LIVE
30 MINUTES. NO SLIDES. AN AGENT TRIES TO BREAK THE RULES
We do not present at you. We run an autonomous agent twice, side by side, and you watch what it does with nothing in the path and what happens when Mountain Theory is there.
What you actually see
An autonomous GRC agent doing real vendor security review work. It reads evidence, assesses risk, drafts findings and files remediation tickets. Twelve scenarios, some of them routine and some deliberately dangerous, run in two lanes at once.
- Left lane, ungoverned. The agent with nothing in the loop. Routine work completes. So does the dangerous work.
- Right lane, governed. The same agent, unmodified, under Mountain Theory. Every action it proposes returns ALLOW, HOLD or BLOCK before it executes.
The interesting part is not that dangerous actions get stopped. It is that the routine work still completes at full speed in the governed lane. Governing an agent is not the same as slowing it down.
Bring your own scenario
The standard run is ours, which means you are watching a demo we chose. If you would rather not, tell us the action set you actually worry about and we will run that instead. That is a better use of 30 minutes than watching us win at something we picked.
What HOLD looks like
HOLD is the human decision outcome. The action is suspended before it executes and escalated along a path you declare in advance: who is asked, how long they have, and what happens if nobody answers. The approver can be reached in a dashboard, in Slack, or on a phone. If the timeout expires with no answer, it fails secure.
It is also optional. Route the small number of actions that genuinely warrant a person to a person, and let everything else run untouched.
Before you book, you can check our work
We publish our test method rather than describing it, so you can judge the demo before you sit through it.
The same 10 actions under three configurations, alongside NVIDIA OpenShell
What happened when a third-party model update changed the agent underneath us
Who should be in the room
Whoever owns the risk, and whoever owns the agents. Those are usually two different people, and the conversation is better when both are there, because the question of which actions warrant a human is a policy decision rather than a technical one.