Use case · Platform leadership
Everyone on your team wants agents helping with operations. The blocker isn't capability, it's accountability: what could this thing touch, what did it actually do, and who signs off? Sentinel gives you an answer for each, as properties of the runtime rather than promises in a slide deck.
Everything below is answerable from the record
What leadership gets
Default-deny capability policy means the blast radius is enumerable before adoption, not discovered after an incident. What wasn't granted can't run.
Every agent action lands on an append-only ledger. When someone asks what the agents did last quarter, the answer is a query, not an archaeology project.
Agent output is a proposal until a named engineer reviews it, and the review is recorded. Responsibility never silently shifts to the machine.
Because every investigation leaves a full trace, you can measure what matters, time to diagnosis, evidence completeness, review outcomes, instead of trusting anecdotes.
The real question
Any framework can point a model at your dashboards and produce a plausible answer. The question your organization actually has to clear is whether an agent can operate inside production workflows, collect evidence, use tools, maintain context across a long investigation, without becoming an ungoverned source of operational risk. That's a runtime question, and it's the one Sentinel is built to answer.
How the runtime worksPolicy before action, provenance after, and a human signature on every outcome. That's the adoption story your risk review will accept.