In ProcureTech, that readiness has not been independently measured. Until now.
Procurement Insights | February 2026
SHORT VERSION FOR BUSY EXECUTIVES
The EU AI Act takes effect in August 2026. It requires human oversight at the point of decision, tamper-evident logging, and provable accountability for high-risk AI systems. These are not technology problems. They are organizational readiness problems.
Most ProcureTech vendors are building smarter AI. None are proving their governance works under pressure.
Today I am publishing the Procurement Insights AGR Index — Agentic Governance Readiness — a new measurement framework that asks the question regulators will ask in six months: Can this organization prove, months later, who decided, why, and with what authority?
The methodology — eight principles, nine scoring dimensions, EU AI Act alignment, and scoring bands — is available as a free download. The scoring rubric that produces the numbers is proprietary to Hansen Models.
The AGR Index does not measure AI capability. It measures whether governance is operable. That distinction is about to become legally significant.
Download the full methodology: Procurement Insights AGR Index: Agentic Governance Readiness — Methodological Principles & Scoring Dimensions
THE FULL POST
Why I Built This
For 27 years, I have documented one pattern: technology capability keeps improving and practitioner outcomes don’t improve with it. The Hansen Fit Score Vendor Assessment Series quantifies this through the Capability-to-Outcome Gap — and every vendor assessed so far exceeds the threshold where vendor growth decouples from customer success.
The EU AI Act changes the stakes.
Before August 2026, the gap was a business risk. After August 2026, it becomes a compliance liability. The Act doesn’t care how sophisticated your AI is. It cares whether a competent human with authority was in control at the point of decision, whether the evidence is reconstructable without relying on someone’s memory, and whether the system still works when things get busy, urgent, or politically complicated.
That is not a technology requirement. That is a readiness requirement.
And readiness is what we measure.
What the AGR Index Is
The Agentic Governance Readiness Index measures whether an organization or vendor can sustain human authority and accountability when AI systems operate at speed and scale.
It is anchored by one principle:
You live governance before you create governance — that is the definition of true agent-based modeling.
This means governance designed on a whiteboard but never tested under real decision pressure is not governance. It is documentation waiting to fail. The AGR Index measures what actually happens when decisions must be made under pressure, not what the policy manual says should happen.
The Framework
Eight Methodological Principles govern all scoring. They address operability over intent, readiness before capability, governance at the point of decision, enforceable oversight, reconstructable evidence, governed disagreement, incentive resilience, and sustainable compliance.
Nine Scoring Dimensions derive explicitly from those principles:
- AGR-1: Decision Authority Operability
- AGR-2: Point-of-Decision Governance Design
- AGR-3: Oversight Enforceability
- AGR-4: Reconstructable Evidence & Auditability
- AGR-5: Evidence Integrity (Tamper-Evident Logging)
- AGR-6: Readiness Gating & Deployment Constraints
- AGR-7: Uncertainty Handling & Disagreement Governance
- AGR-8: Incentive Compatibility & Pressure Resilience
- AGR-9: Sustainability of Compliance as a Byproduct
Three dimensions carry double weight: Decision Authority (AGR-1), Oversight Enforceability (AGR-3), and Reconstructable Evidence (AGR-4). Structural cap rules prevent high AI capability from masking weak governance.
Every dimension maps to specific EU AI Act articles. The full mapping is in the published methodology.
What It Is Not
The AGR Index is not a compliance certification. It does not attest to EU AI Act compliance. It measures whether you are ready to sustain compliance.
It is not a capability ranking. It does not score AI model quality, feature breadth, or roadmap ambition. Capability without governance readiness is scored as risk, not progress.
It is not a maturity model. Governance readiness can regress. The AGR Index measures current state, not trajectory.
Why This Is Free
The methodology document — principles, dimensions, scoring bands, EU AI Act alignment — is available at no cost. The scoring rubric, failure thresholds, cap rules, and assessor heuristics that produce the actual numbers are proprietary to Hansen Models.
I am publishing the framework because the industry needs a shared language for agentic governance readiness before August 2026. Every vendor, regulator, and practitioner who reads this document will engage with the same dimensions and the same scoring bands. That is how measurement standards are established.
The scored vendor assessments — applying the rubric to specific platforms — will be published as part of the Hansen Fit Score Vendor Assessment Series.
The Question That Matters
Six months from now, the EU AI Act will ask every organization deploying high-risk AI: Can you prove that a competent human with authority was in control of this decision?
The AGR Index tells you whether you can answer that question — not once, for an audit, but continuously, under pressure, over time.
Governance that has not been lived cannot be trusted.
Download the PI AGR Index Methodology: Procurement Insights AGR Index: Agentic Governance Readiness — Methodological Principles & Scoring Dimensions
The Procurement Insights AGR Index is produced by Hansen Models (1001279896 Ontario Inc.) under the RAM 2025™ Multimodel Assessment framework. 100% independent — no vendor sponsorship. The methodology was validated across six independent AI models with unanimous convergence on the derivation approach.
Hansen Fit Score™, Phase 0™, and AGR Index are proprietary frameworks of Hansen Models.
-30-
Procurement Insights
The EU AI Act Didn’t Regulate Intelligence — It Regulated Readiness
Posted on February 8, 2026
0
In ProcureTech, that readiness has not been independently measured. Until now.
Procurement Insights | February 2026
SHORT VERSION FOR BUSY EXECUTIVES
The EU AI Act takes effect in August 2026. It requires human oversight at the point of decision, tamper-evident logging, and provable accountability for high-risk AI systems. These are not technology problems. They are organizational readiness problems.
Most ProcureTech vendors are building smarter AI. None are proving their governance works under pressure.
Today I am publishing the Procurement Insights AGR Index — Agentic Governance Readiness — a new measurement framework that asks the question regulators will ask in six months: Can this organization prove, months later, who decided, why, and with what authority?
The methodology — eight principles, nine scoring dimensions, EU AI Act alignment, and scoring bands — is available as a free download. The scoring rubric that produces the numbers is proprietary to Hansen Models.
The AGR Index does not measure AI capability. It measures whether governance is operable. That distinction is about to become legally significant.
Download the full methodology: Procurement Insights AGR Index: Agentic Governance Readiness — Methodological Principles & Scoring Dimensions
THE FULL POST
Why I Built This
For 27 years, I have documented one pattern: technology capability keeps improving and practitioner outcomes don’t improve with it. The Hansen Fit Score Vendor Assessment Series quantifies this through the Capability-to-Outcome Gap — and every vendor assessed so far exceeds the threshold where vendor growth decouples from customer success.
The EU AI Act changes the stakes.
Before August 2026, the gap was a business risk. After August 2026, it becomes a compliance liability. The Act doesn’t care how sophisticated your AI is. It cares whether a competent human with authority was in control at the point of decision, whether the evidence is reconstructable without relying on someone’s memory, and whether the system still works when things get busy, urgent, or politically complicated.
That is not a technology requirement. That is a readiness requirement.
And readiness is what we measure.
What the AGR Index Is
The Agentic Governance Readiness Index measures whether an organization or vendor can sustain human authority and accountability when AI systems operate at speed and scale.
It is anchored by one principle:
This means governance designed on a whiteboard but never tested under real decision pressure is not governance. It is documentation waiting to fail. The AGR Index measures what actually happens when decisions must be made under pressure, not what the policy manual says should happen.
The Framework
Eight Methodological Principles govern all scoring. They address operability over intent, readiness before capability, governance at the point of decision, enforceable oversight, reconstructable evidence, governed disagreement, incentive resilience, and sustainable compliance.
Nine Scoring Dimensions derive explicitly from those principles:
Three dimensions carry double weight: Decision Authority (AGR-1), Oversight Enforceability (AGR-3), and Reconstructable Evidence (AGR-4). Structural cap rules prevent high AI capability from masking weak governance.
Every dimension maps to specific EU AI Act articles. The full mapping is in the published methodology.
What It Is Not
The AGR Index is not a compliance certification. It does not attest to EU AI Act compliance. It measures whether you are ready to sustain compliance.
It is not a capability ranking. It does not score AI model quality, feature breadth, or roadmap ambition. Capability without governance readiness is scored as risk, not progress.
It is not a maturity model. Governance readiness can regress. The AGR Index measures current state, not trajectory.
Why This Is Free
The methodology document — principles, dimensions, scoring bands, EU AI Act alignment — is available at no cost. The scoring rubric, failure thresholds, cap rules, and assessor heuristics that produce the actual numbers are proprietary to Hansen Models.
I am publishing the framework because the industry needs a shared language for agentic governance readiness before August 2026. Every vendor, regulator, and practitioner who reads this document will engage with the same dimensions and the same scoring bands. That is how measurement standards are established.
The scored vendor assessments — applying the rubric to specific platforms — will be published as part of the Hansen Fit Score Vendor Assessment Series.
The Question That Matters
Six months from now, the EU AI Act will ask every organization deploying high-risk AI: Can you prove that a competent human with authority was in control of this decision?
The AGR Index tells you whether you can answer that question — not once, for an audit, but continuously, under pressure, over time.
Governance that has not been lived cannot be trusted.
Download the PI AGR Index Methodology: Procurement Insights AGR Index: Agentic Governance Readiness — Methodological Principles & Scoring Dimensions
The Procurement Insights AGR Index is produced by Hansen Models (1001279896 Ontario Inc.) under the RAM 2025™ Multimodel Assessment framework. 100% independent — no vendor sponsorship. The methodology was validated across six independent AI models with unanimous convergence on the derivation approach.
Hansen Fit Score™, Phase 0™, and AGR Index are proprietary frameworks of Hansen Models.
-30-
Share this:
Related