Agent-vs-agent makes the trust problem sharper, not necessarily easier. Each side needs verifiable evidence of what the other committed to. They cant do with just vendor logs. The "one side controls the record" assumption breaks right after the human-on-the-other-end one. Plus, its like waiting for the police after an incident with out a first-aid kit.
Both, the insurer installs this to produced portable evidence that end users can consume. Would mainly be the startups building AI agents that interact with insurers on behalf of hospitals.
If a hospital needs to process 100,000 claims made by agents and verify them, its their records pitted with vendor logs. This lets the vendor hand over a folder the hospital verifies independently with openssl. No vendor trust required.
The incentive: customers (clinics) can process deterministic evidence independent of the vendor or tool (my code) and the vendors agents build up a track record of trust by themselves without engineers spending their time triaging.
A doctor friend asked me about billing agents their mixed experience not being able to dispute the agent due to abstractions. Wanted your thoughts. I feel agents should prove they are trustworthy and transparent to the human in the loop as in the end user, not the developer.
I built a tool where every AI agent action gets an Ed25519 signed receipt,
hash-chained, and exported as a folder anyone can verify with openssl.
No vendor software needed to verify.
The demo runs 20 simulated insurance claims sessions — standard agents
and rogue agents. Every action is signed. Rogue actions are blocked and
the blocks are signed too.
Reference producer: https://github.com/aerf-spec/agentmint-python