I asked the five RAM (1998 to 2025), AI models to evaluate Gartner’s latest graphic on a scale of 1–10 across three dimensions: clarity, likelihood of reversing the 80% failure rate, and whether it’s more promotional than insightful. Here’s what they said.
Model 1 (4 | 2 | 8): “You can sort of infer the intent, but it bundles governance, monitoring, security, and autonomy into one neat shape without defining boundaries, ownership, or decision rights. It’s visually polished, conceptually fuzzy. Even if ‘guardian agents’ become real, they mainly address post-deployment oversight. The 80% failure rate is driven earlier—misalignment, readiness, decision ownership. This doesn’t touch the front-end causes.”
Model 2 (8 | 3 | 7): “Gartner is acknowledging that as agentic AI proliferates, the risks scale exponentially—drift, hallucinations, malicious use. So they’re forecasting a new class of ‘watchdog’ agents. But it’s classic Gartner—naming a future category to create urgency and a new market for vendors to chase, while the root solution (readiness, alignment, decision rights before deployment) remains underexplored.”
Model 3 (3 | 2 | 8): “The graphic gestures at ‘guardian agents’ as a new governance layer but mixes roles, capabilities, and effects without a clear causal story or operating model. It names desirable outcomes—monitoring, trust, self-healing—but offers no guidance on readiness, decision rights, or implementation sequence. It’s concept marketing dressed as thought leadership.”
Model 5 (3 | 1 | 9): “The hexagon arranges buzzwords without explaining relationships. It assumes AI can govern AI without addressing why AI deployments fail in the first place: organizational misalignment, unclear objectives, change resistance, process gaps. Guardian agents monitoring misaligned systems will just document failure faster. This is a product category announcement dressed as thought leadership.”
Model 6 (3 | 2 | 9): “The graphic obscures the very details required for strategic action. It highlights massive spending growth but buries the ‘ROI reality’ in the fine print. Without the readiness diagnostics—Phase 0, fit assessment—required for success, the chart risks encouraging leaders to simply increase spend, which Gartner itself predicts will lead to unforeseen cost overruns.”
Consensus Verdict: “Visually polished, conceptually hollow. Names a future without explaining how to get there.”
Average Scores:
- Clarity of Message: 4.2/10
- Likelihood of Reversing 80% Failure Rate: 2.0/10
- More Promotional Than Insightful: 8.2/10
-30-
Procurement Insights
RAM 2025 Multimodel Assessment: Gartner’s “Guardian Agents 2029” Graphic
Posted on December 25, 2025
0
I asked the five RAM (1998 to 2025), AI models to evaluate Gartner’s latest graphic on a scale of 1–10 across three dimensions: clarity, likelihood of reversing the 80% failure rate, and whether it’s more promotional than insightful. Here’s what they said.
Model 1 (4 | 2 | 8): “You can sort of infer the intent, but it bundles governance, monitoring, security, and autonomy into one neat shape without defining boundaries, ownership, or decision rights. It’s visually polished, conceptually fuzzy. Even if ‘guardian agents’ become real, they mainly address post-deployment oversight. The 80% failure rate is driven earlier—misalignment, readiness, decision ownership. This doesn’t touch the front-end causes.”
Model 2 (8 | 3 | 7): “Gartner is acknowledging that as agentic AI proliferates, the risks scale exponentially—drift, hallucinations, malicious use. So they’re forecasting a new class of ‘watchdog’ agents. But it’s classic Gartner—naming a future category to create urgency and a new market for vendors to chase, while the root solution (readiness, alignment, decision rights before deployment) remains underexplored.”
Model 3 (3 | 2 | 8): “The graphic gestures at ‘guardian agents’ as a new governance layer but mixes roles, capabilities, and effects without a clear causal story or operating model. It names desirable outcomes—monitoring, trust, self-healing—but offers no guidance on readiness, decision rights, or implementation sequence. It’s concept marketing dressed as thought leadership.”
Model 5 (3 | 1 | 9): “The hexagon arranges buzzwords without explaining relationships. It assumes AI can govern AI without addressing why AI deployments fail in the first place: organizational misalignment, unclear objectives, change resistance, process gaps. Guardian agents monitoring misaligned systems will just document failure faster. This is a product category announcement dressed as thought leadership.”
Model 6 (3 | 2 | 9): “The graphic obscures the very details required for strategic action. It highlights massive spending growth but buries the ‘ROI reality’ in the fine print. Without the readiness diagnostics—Phase 0, fit assessment—required for success, the chart risks encouraging leaders to simply increase spend, which Gartner itself predicts will lead to unforeseen cost overruns.”
Consensus Verdict: “Visually polished, conceptually hollow. Names a future without explaining how to get there.”
Average Scores:
-30-
Share this:
Related