Factory AI

Are scope, spend, and authority enforced while the agent runs?

The vendor publishes a governance posture - "Deploy a governed system that continuously turns enterprise signals into validated production software" - and states the customer sets goals and policies while agents plan and build. That is a claim of governance at the level of positioning, with no scope, spend or authority threshold named and permission_scopes no_public_information, so it scores 1 rather than higher.

Counts Human oversight and Runtime governance, each cited below.

Is there a tamper-evident record of what it actually did?

A record exists and is customer-visible: "Monitor active missions, track worker progress, and view detailed execution logs in real time." No retention period, scope or tamper-evidence is claimed, and audit_trail_immutable is no_public_information, so this is 1 - a reviewable log, not a tamper-evident one.

Counts Audit trail, each cited below.

Are compliance obligations attached per engagement?

No public evidence found. No certification, attestation or regulatory framework is named on the captures checked; compliance_certs and regulatory_alignment are both no_public_information.

Does payment depend on a verified result?

No public evidence found. No pricing at all is published on the captures checked, let alone an outcome condition; pricing_model, outcome_based_pricing and settlement_mechanism are all no_public_information.

Can the deployment be insured, and is the customer indemnified?

No public evidence found. No cover, carrier, limit or indemnity appears; insurance_available, indemnification and liability_cap are all no_public_information.