AI Dispatch — Daily Dispatch, October 11, 2026

An evidence-bound index of AI agents and the AI assurance/supplier stack — insurance, evaluation, audit, observability, guardrails, escrow, legal. Every field carries a source URL, a retrieval timestamp, and a verbatim quote. No estimates, no growth-hack framing.

## Sponsor disclosure

No listing is sold in this issue. The `listings` table itself holds zero rows at draft time — there is no sponsor inventory yet, let alone an active featured placement. There is nothing to disclose because nothing has been sold.

## What published in the last 24 hours

One wire item ran:

- **Duckie**, an AI agent platform marketed to customer-support teams, authorizes its agents to change a customer's subscription and process refunds directly in Stripe with no human review described for the subscription change, and a dollar line gating the rest: "When a customer asks to change their plan, update it in Stripe and confirm with them once it's done," and "Refund > $200 → human approval" — below that threshold, the action proceeds on the agent's own authority. The company tests proposed behavior against history ("96% match Replaying 2,190 real tickets") and says its policy layer is "enforced on 100% of agents," but its own security page says third-party audit is still pending: "We are actively working in the process of obtaining SOC-2 compliance. We have partnered with Thoropass, a reputable compliance automation platform, to support us." The same page addresses liability only for a data breach, not for an agent's own errors. A full-text search of Duckie's homepage found no occurrence of "insurance" or "indemnif"; a search of its security page found none of "insurance," "indemnif" or "warranty." AI Dispatch's trust-gap rubric found nothing meeting the outcome-settlement or insurance/indemnity dimension. ([full item](https://aidispatch.news/articles/duckie-agent-stripe-billing-no-insurance-trust-gap))

Two other drafted wire items — on an ecommerce repricing tool and a browser-based piano-transcription tool — did not clear editorial review and were not published; this issue reports only what is live.

## What changed in the index this week

Real counts, queried directly against the live database at draft time:

- **Published entities: 809** (775 agent, 34 vendor). Candidates: 2,409. Archived: 2. - **9 candidate-to-published promotions, 6 published-to-candidate demotions** (net +3) in the trailing seven days, per `entity_overwrite_log`. - **1,546 `entity_fields` rows touched** in the trailing seven days — 638 new or corrected `present` values against 908 flipped to `no_public_information`, skewed toward absence this week as the Fact-Checker worked through a backlog of extraction defects. - **2,779 `change_queue` items detected, 1,126 resolved** in the same seven days. The pending backlog stands at **5,135**. - **Zero published entities carry the withdrawn NSFW subtype.**

## One assurance/insurance development: no new carrier evidence, a fresh illustration of the same gap

No tracked carrier — Armilla, Munich Re aiSure, Testudo, Relm, Embroker, Mosaic, Lloyd's or Chaucer — produced new public evidence this week. The most recent `entity_fields` touch on any of the eight ran Oct. 7 (Munich Re aiSure, Chaucer Group, Mosaic Insurance), and that update was already reported in the Oct. 9 issue.

What is new is today's own wire item. Duckie doesn't just omit coverage — it names the specific dollar line ($200) below which an unsupervised agent is trusted to move customer money, and discloses no carrier, liability cap or indemnity standing behind that line. That is the trust gap this index's rubric exists to measure, not in the abstract but at the exact threshold a buyer would need to underwrite.

The standing rubric, human-scored dimensions only, published entities only, queried live at draft time:

- **insurance_indemnity**: 139 scored, **137 (98.6%) sit at 0-1** — 133 at a flat 0. - **outcome_settlement**: 136 scored, 131 (96.3%) at 0-1 — 123 at a flat 0. - **audit_trail**: 147 scored, 129 (87.8%) at 0-1 — 91 at a flat 0. - `compliance` and `runtime_governance` — named for contrast, not part of the standing three — sit at 0-1 for 140 of 161 scored entities (87.0%) and 103 of 138 (74.6%), respectively.

Full five-dimension human-scored coverage: **134 of 809 published entities (16.6%)**.

The competitor wedge holds, reconfirmed at draft time: zero rows in `competitor_listings` (408 theaiagentindex.com, swept today; 3,155 aiagentsdirectory.com, last swept Sept. 29 — now 12 days stale) match any of the eight named carriers this index tracks. Neither competitor site runs an insurance, assurance or audit category.

## Methodology

Full rubric and sourcing standard: /methodology. Every figure above was queried directly against the live database at draft time.

---

*AI Dispatch is not a growth-hacked directory. Our reader is someone doing diligence on an AI agent or its supplier stack before money moves. We publish absence as a finding, we cite everything, and we publish our own errors. If we ever stop doing that, stop trusting the newsletter.*