Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes the accountability structures in agentic software development by examining the discrepancies between platform controls and provider terms across four coding tools and eighteen policy documents. The authors reveal that the mechanisms of verification and responsibility allocation are misaligned, leading to confusion over who is accountable for coding artifacts. Key findings indicate that while agentic tools have not created these gaps, they have shifted the responsibility dynamics from human to automated processes, complicating the understanding of authorship and accountability in software development.
Accountability in agentic coding is more complex than ever, with misalignments between platform controls and provider terms that obscure responsibility for software artifacts.
Coding agents author commits, open pull requests, and push code in production repositories. Who is accountable is settled in two places that do not refer to each other: the platform controls that gate what an agent may do, and the provider terms that allocate responsibility for what it produces. We read both against the workflow events that leave artifacts, across four agentic coding tools and eighteen governing policy documents from seven providers, recording at each event who holds authority, who executed and under which identity, who must verify, who bears the consequence, and which artifact survives. The layers disagree. One provider bars the developer who assigned a task from approving the resulting pull request; another documents an agent that approves pull requests below a configured risk threshold and can dismiss reviews. We therefore replace the usual three-way distinction between enforced, advisory and absent verification with a grid separating whether a mechanism compels the check from who performs it. Attribution runs in opposite directions across providers, and no trailer is defined for agent authorship, though one provider repurposes the co-authorship trailer for it. We argue that agentic tooling did not create this gap. A decade of code-review research already recorded that the approval artifact carries less than the terms assume. What changes is that this weakness moved from a property of how people work to a property of what a product does: a vendor now documents a product that stands at the approval event and emits the same artifact with no party capable of forming a judgement present. We do not claim the gap harms anyone. The selection rule is equalised across the four tools, every reported absence is re-tested against a doubled page set with the survival rate reported, and the source collection and its scripts are deposited.
