Guardrails for Agentic AI: Control Design for Autonomous Agents in Regulated Banking

Main Article Content

Sasank Aramadaka

Abstract

Agentic artificial intelligence, systems that plan multi step actions, invoke tools and application interfaces, and pursue a goal with limited step by step human direction, represents a meaningful departure from the request and response automation that banking institutions have governed for years. A conventional model produces an output that a human or a downstream process then acts upon. An autonomous agent acts, sequencing decisions, calling systems, and adjusting its plan based on what it observes, often within a single uninterrupted execution. This shift from producing an answer to taking action changes what governance must accomplish, from reviewing an output to constraining a behavior.


This article presents a control design approach to building guardrails for agentic AI deployed in regulated banking environments, where the cost of an unconstrained autonomous action, an unauthorized fund transfer, an inappropriate disclosure, an incorrect account change, carries direct regulatory and customer consequence. It covers the risk characteristics that distinguish agentic AI from conventional automation, guardrail design principles and categories, autonomy level risk profiles, a layered control architecture, implementation patterns for input validation, action authorization, and tool access control, and human oversight and escalation design. The approach draws on established practice in model risk management, banking supervisory guidance, and emerging autonomous agent safety research to ground its recommendations in observed institutional and research practice [1][2][6].


 The article is organized into thirteen sections, moving from the agentic AI risk landscape and guardrail design principles, through autonomy level risk profiles, control layer architecture, implementation patterns, human oversight design, governance, benchmarking data, and a quantitative analysis of the operational and financial case for investment. It closes with implementation challenges and a forward looking view of where agentic AI control design in banking is headed.


 

23 23

Article Details

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Guardrails for Agentic AI: Control Design for Autonomous Agents in Regulated Banking. (2025). International Journal of Research Publications in Engineering, Technology and Management (IJRPETM), 8(2), 11855-11869. https://doi.org/10.15662/IJRPETM.2025.0802009

References

[1] Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Supervisory Guidance on Model Risk Management. SR 11-7, 2011.

[2] National Institute of Standards and Technology. AI Risk Management Framework. 2023.

[3] Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. Principles for Effective Risk Data Aggregation and Risk Reporting. Bank for International Settlements, January 2013.

[4] Gartner. Market Guide for AI Agent Orchestration Platforms. 2024.

[5] Forrester Research. The State of Agentic AI. 2024.

[6] Association for Computing Machinery. Autonomous Agent Safety and Oversight: A Survey. 2023.

[7] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Advances in Large Language Model Agents: A Survey. 2024.

[8] McKinsey and Company. The State of AI in 2024. 2024.

[9] Deloitte. Governance of Automated Compliance Controls. 2022.

[10] International Organization for Standardization. ISO IEC 23894, Artificial Intelligence, Guidance on Risk Management. 2023.

[11] Boston Consulting Group. Operational Resilience Through Automation. 2021.

[12] World Economic Forum. The Future of Jobs Report. 2023.

[13] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Fair Lending Report. 2023.

[14] Celent. Conversational AI in Financial Services Customer Service. 2021.

[15] Financial Stability Board. Implementation and Effects of the G20 Financial Regulatory Reforms. November 2019.

[16] Gartner. Hype Cycle for Artificial Intelligence. 2024.

[17] PwC. Responsible AI Survey. 2023.