From riskmandate.ai, the page as fetched on 2026-09-24 · open the live page ↗Everything on this sheet is the source site's own text; the newsroom's chrome is outside it.
Two articles: pilots that do not stay, and edits that cannot be undone
Two memos from the lead on the same day, each a hypothesis to check before it was written up. Registered as D14 and D15↗.
- The pilot worked. Then somebody asked what else it could do.↗ The hypothesis: many generative AI and agent pilots never reach production, or are switched off after they do, because the business compares what the agent was meant to do with what it can do, at machine speed and on somebody's authority, and declines to sign for the difference. The article gives the published figures with the causes each source names, including the ones that point elsewhere: MIT's study blames learning, RAND blames problem definition and data, IDC blames data and integration. It shows seven cases where what a system said or did became the company's, and two often cited alongside them that do not fit. And it says plainly that no survey we found tests the mechanism. The fix it argues for is limits written in business units at design time, each beside whatever enforces it; the example numbers are labelled invented.
- A deleted meeting comes back. An edited one does not.↗ Google Calendar keeps a deleted event in a trash for 30 days and documents no way for a user to restore an edited one, so edit, not delete, is the permission to worry about. Every recovery fact is quoted from Google's own pages. Checking the memo turned up two traps it did not have: deleting "this and following" events skips the trash, and an API change to the guest list discards the old list. It also turned up a qualification: Workspace editions with Vault keep earlier versions for an admin to export, though not to restore. Three places where Google's pages contradict each other are published unresolved, and nothing was tested on any account.
What was not done: the credit approval at two in the morning has no public source and is told as an anecdote. The Calendar behaviour policies are in draft; the article quotes their rows and says so. The claim that early users value their calendar over their inbox comes from a handful of conversations, and is reported as that.