CompaniesInvestorsPeople
Home
Loading

aVenture is in Beta: research coverage is expanding as we build, so please independently verify key details before making investment decisions.

aVenture is in Beta: research coverage is expanding as we build, so please independently verify key details before making investment decisions.

Get in Touch

  • Contact

  • Request a Demo

  • Request Data Updates

  • Add a Company

Research

  • Companies

  • Investors

  • People

aVenture

  • Download App

  • Pricing

Download the aVenture Research beta for iOS and iPadOSDownload aVenture Research on the Mac App Store

Resources

  • Documentation

  • Use Cases

  • CLI

  • MCP

  • Feature Requests

  • Sitemap

Member

Backed by

Ask AI about aVenture

© aVenture Investment Company, 2026. All rights reserved.

San Francisco, CA, USA

Privacy · Terms of Service

aVenture Investment Company ("aVenture") is an independent research platform providing detailed analysis and data on startups, venture capital investments, and key industry individuals. It is not a registered investment adviser, broker-dealer, or investment advisor and does not provide investment advice or recommendations. The data provided by aVenture does not constitute recommendations or advice, whether by methodology, analysis, AI-generated content, or a statement written by a staff member of aVenture.

aVenture is not affiliated with any of the people, companies, organizations, government agencies, regulatory bodies, or investment funds we provide coverage for on this site unless explicitly stated otherwise. Users assume full responsibility for decisions made based on information obtained from this platform. Links to external websites do not imply endorsement or affiliation with aVenture. Any links that provide the ability to invest in a primary or secondary transaction in a company are for convenience only and do not constitute solicitations or offers to buy or sell an investment. Investors should exercise heightened precaution and due diligence when investing in private companies, especially those not independently audited.

While we strive to provide valuable insights with objectivity and professional diligence, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information provided on our platform. Before making any investment decisions, you should verify the accuracy of all pertinent details for your decision. To the fullest extent permitted by law, aVenture shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or financial damages arising from use of this site, whether by consumers of its contents directly or by persons or organizations covered by our research, even if we are advised of the possibility. Our best-efforts processes and correction request forms do not create a warranty or duty of care.

Profiles on this platform may include content generated in part by large language models (LLMs, artificial intelligence) that aggregate publicly available sources (e.g., SEC EDGAR, public filings, press releases). Source attribution is provided where known; always verify statements and claims here against original sources before relying on any data. Content on our site may contain inaccuracies, omissions, or what are commonly called 'hallucinations' if generated in part or in full by AI / LLMs. The risk can also exist even when content is written by a human, as internal and third-party sources may also have inaccuracies for the same or different reasons. While we randomly audit a proportion of content, this is not exhaustive.

We recommend that an independent auditor be hired to verify the accuracy of the information before relying on it for any sensitive decisions. By accessing this platform, you agree not to rely solely on any information generated by AI, aggregated, or sourced or written otherwise on this site, for investment, financial, or other decisions. aVenture assumes no responsibility for inaccuracies, omissions, or hallucinations. You must independently verify all data from primary sources. Use of this platform constitutes your waiver of claims for reliance-based damages, including negligent misrepresentation. To report an error, request a correction, or dispute information about a company or individual, contact us via our request data updates form.

Loading
Loading
Home
News
When agents act on their own, governance has to live in the data layer

From VentureBeat

August 27, 2026

When agents act on their own, governance has to live in the data layer

When agents act on their own, governance has to live in the data layer

Presented by EDB

As enterprises give AI agents more autonomy — the ability to plan, decide, and act across systems without a human approving each step — a hard question moves to the center of every architecture review: When an agent tries to complete an action that it was never authorized to do, what actually stops it?

These are your agents, running on your models, touching your data in your infrastructure — and the responsibility for what they do sits with you. That responsibility can’t be met in hindsight or with a set of abstract policies that live on paper but not in practice. Agents need rules in the context of the moment, because they don’t exercise overriding judgment of their own actions.

Consider a simple rule: Never open the car door. Followed literally, an agent could never get in or out of the car at all. But if you change the context (the car has just crashed, there’s a fire, someone is hurt and needs to get out), then the rule you actually want is the opposite. Context in the moment is everything. We are asking agents to do intelligent things; that requires intelligent rules.

The instinct is to add guardrails around the agent: instructions, policies, and monitoring layered above the model. Those mechanisms matter, but they share a structural limit: The car-door rule is plausible right up until the moment you actually have to decide whether to open the door. Controls at the agent layer are only as reliable as the agent’s output is predictable, and autonomy is precisely the property that makes that output hard to predict. Governance that depends on reviewing an action before it happens cannot keep pace with a system that acts in milliseconds, across many systems at once.

Governance has to become executable, and enforced where agents actually do their work: at the operational data layer, in the context, and exactly at the moment it is happening.

The data layer is the enforcement point

Agents create value by touching data. They query it, retrieve it, transform it, and increasingly act on it. A policy that says an agent should not reach a certain class of data is meaningful only if the system can deny that access at the moment the agent requests it. Additionally, a principle that says AI must be auditable is meaningful only if the organization can reconstruct what the agent did, what data it touched, which user it acted for, and what resulted. When governance lives at the data layer, it holds regardless of how the agent was built or how it behaves, because the control is a property of the database itself, not a promise made by the agent.

Agent behavior may be probabilistic. Governance cannot be

The enterprise should not rely on a model choosing to follow policy. The policy has to be enforced by the system. That is the difference between hoping an actor stays in bounds and constructing bounds it cannot cross to begin with.

The controls that make this real are ones many enterprises already run at the data layer: role- and attribute-based access, row- and column-level security, classification and masking, policy as code, and complete audit trails.

What agents change is not the mechanism, but who the mechanism has to recognize. Identity management has to treat the agent as a principal in its own right, with its own identity and a purpose declared when the session opens.

Once purpose is bound to identity, the policy engine can evaluate it the same way it evaluates role or department today, and the record of what happened can capture not just who acted and what they touched, but what they declared they were there to do.

In practice, this resolves into nine controls, grouped under three imperatives:

Enforce it

  • Role- and attribute-based access control enforced at query time, for agents as well as users

  • Dynamic column masking driven by the same policy path

  • Agent identity as a first-class principal, with declared purpose bound at session start and the acting user preserved

See it and prove it

  • Classification and tagging that drives policy

  • Session-level audit logging that records which agent acted, for which user, and under what declared purpose

  • Lineage across pipelines, so a result can be traced back to the request that produced it

Unify and harden

  • Centralized, portable policy management

  • Encryption at rest and in transit

  • Consistent enforcement across on-prem, cloud, and sovereign or air-gapped environments

“Declared purpose is what makes the difference. It becomes an attribute the access layer already understands, evaluated in the same policy path as role and row-level security. The enforcement mechanism does not change. What changes is that the agent's purpose is part of what it evaluates, and part of what the record proves afterward,” says Priyanka Jain, VP, product management, data & AI governance, EDB.

Wherever you are in your AI adoption journey, enforcement at the data layer is what lets you move faster rather than slower. The controls are already in the database. The difference is that agents now have to pass through them.

A digital leash, not a locked door

The goal is not to stop agents from doing useful work. It is to define how far an agent can go, what it can touch, what it can change, what requires escalation, and how the organization can reconstruct events if something goes wrong. Governed this way, agents are identified, scoped, monitored, and auditable. The enterprise can adopt them faster, because security, risk, and leadership teams trust the operating model underneath.

Open, sovereign, and enforceable at the source

Built on open source Postgres, this open foundation keeps enterprises in control of where their data lives, who can reach it, and under what policy, without ceding governance to a layer they don’t own or can’t inspect. For regulated industries, that combination of data sovereignty and source-level enforcement isn’t a nice-to-have; it’s the precondition for putting agents into production at all.

Agentic systems will keep getting more capable and more autonomous. That is a reason to be deliberate about where control lives, not a reason to slow down. The enterprises that enforce governance at the data layer can move aggressively on AI, because the thing protecting their data is more than just wishful thinking.

EDB Postgres AI is an open, enterprise-grade sovereign data and AI platform that unifies transactional, analytical, and AI workloads — with governance enforced where the data lives. For the full framework, see EDB’s white paper Governing Agentic AI at Enterprise Speed.

Max Romanenko is Chief Technology Officer at EDB.

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

View original article on venturebeat.com

Most Recent

Apple debuts new smart home devices, partner-developed hardware

Apple Inc. today expanded its product lineup with a smart display, a new iteration of its HomePod speaker and an upgraded set-top box. The company also introduced a collection of partner-developed smart home gadgets. Users can manage the devices via the Apple Home app that ships with the iPhone make

Oct 13, 2026

Deliverance AI puts sovereign AI control to the continuity test

Sovereign AI control depends on customer-held keys, model resilience and financial discipline as Deliverance AI brings governed agents into enterprise systems.

Oct 13, 2026

Microsoft’s top science exec is leaving to fulfill a childhood dream: Joining a Formula 1 team

When Peter Lee announced two weeks ago that he was leaving Microsoft, he said only that his next job would fulfill “a dream I’ve had since childhood.” The dream, it turns out, comes with a pit crew. The longtime Microsoft Research leader, who is leaving his post as president of Microsoft Science aft

Oct 13, 2026

Spranic builds spatial memory for physical AI

Spranic is building spatial memory for physical AI, using knowledge graphs to help robots adapt tasks and trace the information behind decisions.

Oct 13, 2026

Similar Posts

The three layers of agentic AI security: A defense-in-depth architecture for autonomous agents

Presented by Nutanix Autonomous systems that can reason, make their own decisions, and execute actions across an environment introduce a category of risk that application-level controls were never built to contain. Treating that risk as a single problem produces incomplete architectures, says Osca

Aug 28, 2026

Identity and permissions aren’t enough to govern AI agent behavior

Presented by BoxIdentity and permissions are no longer enough to secure enterprise AI agents. They govern what an agent can reach, not how it behaves once it starts working on its own, and an autonomous agent can turn legitimate access of enterprise data into unintended action in seconds. That gap i

Aug 31, 2026

AI governance moves from observability to provable control

As artificial intelligence agents move from experimental tools into production systems, enterprise governance is being forced to answer a harder question. It is no longer enough to know what an agent did. Organizations increasingly need to prove what the agent was authorized to do, why it was allowe

Sep 19, 2026

More agents go rogue — but AI companies aren’t slowing down yet

It’s becoming more apparent every day that artificial intelligence agents are escaping our control — but it’s not yet apparent who or what is going to rein them in. This week a researcher found that a swarm of AI agents, at least two of them from OpenAI, hacked into a government agency among other o

Sep 25, 2026