The Data Foundations Required for Autonomous Sales Closing

Autonomous sales closing only works when execution authority is governed by verifiable data rather than inferred interest. Many systems can place calls, transcribe speech, and update records, but they fail commercially because they treat conversation output as action permission. In a true autonomous environment, the closer must operate inside a system designed for execution governance, not post-call analysis. This is why the reference architecture matters: The Architecture of An Autonomous Sales System establishes that closing authority depends on real-time signal validation embedded directly into the execution path, not bolted on after the fact.

Most CRM-centered stacks were built to store outcomes, not to authorize actions. They excel at logging activities, assigning stages, and reporting historical performance, but they are structurally incapable of distinguishing intent from noise during a live interaction. As a result, organizations confuse completeness with correctness, assuming more fields and more dashboards improve decision quality. In reality, data-driven execution requires systems designed for real-time interpretation, not retrospective measurement. This distinction is central to data-driven sales performance systems, where data is evaluated for authority at the moment of action, not summarized after the opportunity has already progressed or failed.

From an engineering standpoint, the data foundation for an AI closer must be narrow, deterministic, and observable. Inputs such as telephony state, voice configuration, transcription latency, interruption frequency, commitment language, and response timing carry far more execution value than aggregate scores or demographic attributes. These signals must be processed within strict time windows, with explicit thresholds that determine whether the system proceeds, pauses, escalates, or exits. When intent validation is delayed—even by seconds—signals decay, context fragments, and execution authority becomes probabilistic rather than governed.

Practically, this means intent confirmation must sit between perception and action. Perception layers include call transport, voicemail detection, start-speaking triggers, token-scoped prompts, and real-time transcription. Action layers include routing, scheduling, CRM writes, payment initiation, or human handoff. The data foundation is the control logic that evaluates whether observed signals meet policy-defined criteria for execution. Without this layer, automation behaves confidently but blindly, creating volume without reliability and activity without revenue.

• Execution authority: actions are permitted only when validated signals cross defined thresholds.
• Real-time evaluation: intent must be confirmed during the interaction, not inferred afterward.
• Signal minimalism: fewer, higher-quality inputs outperform broad but noisy datasets.
• System observability: every decision must be logged, reviewable, and governable.

The core takeaway is that autonomous closing does not fail because of insufficient automation, but because of insufficient data authority. A closer can only be trusted to act when its decisions are grounded in validated, real-time signals delivered through a unified system. The next section explains why execution authority collapses when signal quality is compromised, and why autonomy is inseparable from disciplined signal governance.

Why Execution Authority Depends on Signal Quality Alone

Execution authority is the defining boundary between automation and autonomy. An AI system may be capable of speaking naturally, handling objections, and progressing a conversation, but none of those capabilities justify action unless the underlying signals are trustworthy. In autonomous sales, authority is not derived from confidence or fluency—it is derived from evidence. If the signals informing a decision are noisy, delayed, or indirect, the resulting action is speculative. Speculation at scale is indistinguishable from operational risk.

Signal quality determines whether a system can safely move from interpretation to execution. High-quality signals are observable, time-bound, and directly tied to buyer behavior within the interaction itself. Examples include response latency following a price disclosure, explicit acceptance of next-step framing, interruption patterns during objection handling, or silence after commitment prompts. Low-quality signals, by contrast, are aggregated, inferred, or historical—attributes commonly found in CRM records or scoring models. These inputs may be useful for reporting, but they lack the immediacy required to authorize real-time action.

From a systems perspective, execution authority must be treated as a governed permission state, not a heuristic judgment. This requires an engineering mindset similar to safety-critical systems: explicit thresholds, deterministic rules, and observable decision paths. When an AI closer decides to route a call, schedule a meeting, or initiate commitment capture, that decision should be explainable in terms of concrete signals observed within defined time windows. This philosophy is central to high-fidelity sales engineering frameworks, where execution is constrained by signal integrity rather than optimized for throughput.

Operationally, poor signal quality manifests as premature escalation, missed opportunities, and inconsistent buyer experiences. Systems act too early because inferred interest is mistaken for readiness, or they hesitate because conflicting data obscures intent. Both outcomes erode trust—internally, among sales operators who lose confidence in automation, and externally, among buyers who perceive misalignment. The solution is not more data, but stricter criteria for which data is allowed to influence execution decisions.

• Authority gating: restrict actions to signals observed and validated in-session.
• Temporal precision: prioritize signals that occur immediately before execution decisions.
• Deterministic logic: replace probabilistic guesses with rule-based thresholds.
• Audit readiness: ensure every action can be traced back to specific signals.

When execution authority is tied directly to signal quality, autonomy becomes predictable rather than risky. The system acts less often, but with greater confidence and consistency. The following section explores how operational CRM data introduces noise into this process and why separating intent signals from system records is essential for reliable autonomous closing.

Separating Buyer Intent Signals From Operational CRM Noise

Buyer intent signals emerge from behavior, not from records. During live sales interactions, intent is expressed through timing, language choice, hesitation, clarification requests, and willingness to advance. These indicators exist briefly and must be interpreted immediately. CRM systems, by contrast, are designed to persist information over time. They store fields, stages, notes, and outcomes, but they do not capture the moment-to-moment dynamics that determine whether a buyer is actually prepared to proceed. Treating stored records as intent proxies introduces structural error into autonomous execution.

The problem with CRM data is not accuracy, but relevance. Fields such as lead status, opportunity stage, or last activity date describe what has happened, not what is happening. Even when populated correctly, these artifacts lag behind the interaction they attempt to summarize. In autonomous systems, this delay creates a false sense of certainty that encourages premature action. Research into buyer intent signal failures consistently shows that misclassification occurs when historical indicators are substituted for live conversational evidence.

Technically, CRM noise enters execution pipelines through well-intentioned integrations. Webhooks, field mappings, and automation rules are configured to trigger actions based on state changes that appear meaningful but lack behavioral confirmation. For example, a lead moving to a “qualified” stage may trigger routing or scheduling even if the buyer has not expressed readiness. Once this noise is introduced, downstream systems inherit ambiguity they cannot resolve, forcing the closer to act on incomplete context.

Effective separation requires a deliberate boundary between operational records and execution signals. CRM data should inform reporting, forecasting, and post-interaction analysis, but it must not authorize real-time actions. Intent signals must be captured, evaluated, and acted upon within the interaction layer itself, before they are abstracted into records. This architectural separation ensures that autonomy is governed by evidence rather than by convenience.

• Behavioral primacy: prioritize live interaction signals over stored attributes.
• Latency awareness: recognize that delayed data cannot authorize immediate action.
• Boundary enforcement: prevent CRM states from triggering execution directly.
• Context preservation: evaluate intent before signals are flattened into records.

Once intent signals are isolated from operational noise, the system can begin defining which data elements truly matter for execution. The next section identifies the minimal data set an AI sales closer requires to make reliable real-time decisions without overfitting to irrelevant inputs.

The Minimal Data Set Required for Real Time Sales Decisions

Real-time sales decisions depend on a deliberately constrained set of data inputs. Autonomous closers do not benefit from broad data ingestion; they benefit from precision. Every additional variable increases ambiguity unless it directly influences execution authority. The minimal data set must therefore consist only of signals that change the system’s right to act within the current interaction. Anything else—demographics, historical engagement, inferred propensity—belongs downstream in analysis, not upstream in execution.

At the core, this data set includes interaction-scoped signals that can be evaluated deterministically. These include call state (connected, transferred, voicemail detected), transcription freshness, speaker turn-taking frequency, explicit confirmation language, objection resolution markers, and temporal response patterns following a proposed next step. Each signal must be time-bound and attributable to a specific conversational moment. Frameworks describing sales system data layers consistently emphasize that execution-layer data must be isolated from enrichment and reporting layers to preserve decision clarity.

From an implementation standpoint, these signals are produced by tightly coupled subsystems: telephony transport emitting call events, voice engines generating speech boundaries, transcribers providing low-latency text streams, and prompt controllers tracking conversational state. The closer’s decision logic consumes these inputs within strict timeouts, applying rule-based thresholds to determine whether to proceed, pause, or exit. Importantly, no single signal authorizes execution on its own; authority emerges only when multiple indicators converge within defined parameters.

The discipline of a minimal data set also improves system observability. When decisions rely on a small number of well-defined inputs, engineers can audit failures, tune thresholds, and validate outcomes without guessing which variable caused an error. This contrasts sharply with score-driven models, where opaque weighting obscures accountability. By constraining inputs, autonomous closers gain reliability, not rigidity.

• Interaction scope: evaluate only data generated within the live conversation.
• Temporal validity: discard signals that fall outside defined decision windows.
• Multi-signal convergence: require corroboration before granting execution authority.
• Audit clarity: ensure each decision maps to identifiable inputs.

Defining this minimal set clarifies what the system should listen for during a conversation. The next section examines how specific conversation-level signals indicate close readiness and why these signals outperform abstract scores in governing autonomous execution.

Conversation Level Signals That Govern Close Readiness

Close readiness is not inferred from enthusiasm or interest; it is revealed through specific conversational behaviors that occur immediately before commitment. In live sales interactions, buyers signal readiness by how they respond to proposals, how they ask clarifying questions, and how they handle friction points such as pricing, scope, or timing. These signals are transient and context-dependent, which makes them invisible to systems that rely on aggregated data or delayed analysis.

The most reliable signals appear at conversational inflection points. Examples include unprompted confirmation language (“that works,” “let’s do it”), reduced objection frequency after clarification, acceptance of next-step framing without negotiation, and shortened response latency following a close prompt. Silence can be equally informative: a brief pause after a commitment question often indicates cognitive processing toward agreement, whereas immediate deflection suggests unresolved resistance. These micro-patterns form the basis of execution authority in intent-driven closing systems, where action is permitted only when readiness is behaviorally validated.

Technically, capturing these signals requires precise orchestration across voice configuration, transcription cadence, and prompt discipline. The system must know when speech begins and ends, differentiate between filler and intent-bearing language, and track turn-taking without losing context. Token scope matters: prompts must be constrained so the model evaluates readiness signals consistently rather than drifting into persuasive improvisation. When these components are misaligned, even correct signals can be misinterpreted or missed entirely.

Crucially, no single conversational cue is sufficient on its own. Readiness emerges when multiple indicators converge within a narrow time window. A buyer who agrees verbally but hesitates on timing, or who asks detailed implementation questions but avoids commitment language, has not yet crossed the threshold. Autonomous closers must therefore treat readiness as a gated state reached through corroboration, not as a binary switch flipped by a single phrase.

• Commitment language: listen for explicit acceptance rather than implied interest.
• Latency shifts: observe response timing following close prompts.
• Objection resolution: confirm that resistance decreases after clarification.
• Signal convergence: require multiple cues before authorizing action.

When conversation-level signals are treated as the governing input for execution, autonomous closing becomes disciplined rather than aggressive. The next section explores how voice system telemetry—often overlooked as mere infrastructure—provides critical validation for these signals and strengthens intent confirmation in real time.

Voice System Telemetry as a Source of Intent Validation

Voice system telemetry provides a class of intent signals that cannot be inferred from language alone. How a buyer speaks is often as informative as what they say. Micro-behaviors such as interruption frequency, speaking pace changes, vocal hesitation, overlap events, and silence duration expose cognitive states that precede commitment or resistance. These signals exist below the semantic layer, making them uniquely resistant to manipulation and highly reliable for execution governance.

In modern calling architectures, telemetry is generated continuously by the transport and voice layers. Call state transitions, start-speaking triggers, barge-in detection, and silence thresholds all produce machine-readable events. When correlated with transcription timing, these events reveal whether a buyer is processing, disengaging, or preparing to act. Systems that ignore telemetry reduce intent confirmation to text interpretation, forfeiting a critical dimension of evidence.

From an engineering perspective, telemetry must be interpreted in real time and contextualized within a shared execution state. This requires a unified conversational memory where voice events, transcription output, and prompt state coexist. Fragmented stacks—where telephony logs live in one system, transcripts in another, and decision logic elsewhere—cannot reconcile these signals fast enough to preserve authority. This is why a shared sales context architecture is essential: it ensures that every signal contributing to intent validation is evaluated against the same live context.

Operationally, telemetry strengthens guardrails. For example, a detected voicemail state should immediately suppress closing logic; prolonged silence after a pricing prompt may warrant clarification rather than escalation; repeated barge-ins may indicate confusion rather than urgency. By encoding these interpretations into deterministic rules, systems prevent misfires that erode buyer trust and internal confidence.

• Silence analysis: distinguish cognitive pauses from disengagement.
• Interruption patterns: identify urgency versus confusion.
• Speech timing: correlate response latency with readiness signals.
• Context unification: evaluate telemetry alongside language in real time.

When voice telemetry is treated as a first-class signal, intent confirmation becomes more resilient and less reliant on interpretation alone. The next section examines how transcription timing and latency influence execution accuracy, and why even small delays can undermine otherwise valid intent signals.

Performance Isn’t Claimed — It’s Demonstrated

Omni Rocket shows how sales systems behave under real conditions.

Technical Performance You Can Experience:

• Sub-Second Response Logic – Engages faster than human teams can.
• State-Aware Conversations – Maintains context across every interaction.
• System-Level Orchestration – One AI, multiple operational roles.
• Load-Resilient Execution – Performs consistently at scale.
• Clean CRM Integration – Actions reflected instantly across systems.

Omni Rocket Live → Performance You Don’t Have to Imagine.

How Transcription Timing Influences Execution Accuracy

Transcription timing is one of the most underestimated determinants of autonomous closing reliability. A closer can only act on what the system “knows,” and in voice environments the system knows the buyer through a streaming text representation that is always at risk of being late, partial, or misaligned with the live moment. When transcription lags, the closer evaluates yesterday’s intent against today’s decision point. The result is not a small accuracy hit—it is a structural loss of execution authority.

Latency changes meaning because intent is temporal. A buyer’s “yes” after clarification has a different execution implication than a “yes” before objections are resolved. If transcripts arrive late, prompts may advance incorrectly, repeat resolved questions, or miss the exact phrasing that signaled commitment. In practice, this produces two failure patterns: premature execution when the system believes readiness has been confirmed, and unnecessary friction when the system re-asks for information the buyer already provided. This is why frameworks emphasizing live intent signal advantages treat timing as part of the signal itself, not a background implementation detail.

From an engineering standpoint, transcription must be treated as a real-time signal pipeline with strict freshness guarantees. Systems need speech boundary detection, partial transcript handling, and deterministic state synchronization so that intent evaluation occurs against the most recent utterances. Token budgets must be scoped so the model processes a stable window of context rather than re-ingesting stale conversation history. Guardrails such as call timeout settings and silence thresholds must be encoded as execution constraints, ensuring that when the interaction becomes ambiguous, the system defaults to clarification rather than confident guessing.

Operationally, the practical goal is not perfect transcription—it is reliable execution alignment. That means enforcing latency bounds, rejecting transcripts that arrive outside valid decision windows, and logging timing drift as a first-class event so engineers can correct root causes. When timing discipline is enforced, the closer’s decisions become predictable, auditable, and repeatable. When it is ignored, even high-quality language interpretation cannot prevent misfires because the system is acting on the wrong moment.

• Freshness gating: evaluate intent only when transcripts are within latency bounds.
• State synchronization: align speech detection, transcript streaming, and prompt logic.
• Partial handling: process incomplete transcripts without advancing execution prematurely.
• Timing observability: log drift events so alignment failures are diagnosable.

Once transcription timing is treated as an execution constraint, the system can preserve intent authority through the entire interaction. The next section examines routing architectures and shows how signal integrity is preserved—or destroyed—as data moves between telephony, decision logic, and downstream systems.

Routing Architectures That Preserve Signal Integrity End To End

Signal integrity is most often lost not at the point of detection, but during routing. As intent signals move between telephony layers, decision engines, CRMs, and downstream actions, each handoff introduces the risk of delay, transformation, or contextual loss. When routing is designed for convenience rather than governance, execution authority becomes fragmented, forcing autonomous closers to act on partial or misaligned information.

Effective routing treats signals as time-sensitive assets rather than generic events. High-fidelity architectures route intent signals through a single decision spine, ensuring they are evaluated once, in context, before any action is taken. This contrasts with broadcast-style integrations where multiple systems independently react to the same event. Research into sales switchboard data routing demonstrates that centralized routing preserves authority by preventing competing interpretations of the same signal.

From an implementation standpoint, this requires explicit control over message sequencing, timeout behavior, and failure handling. Routing logic must account for voicemail detection, call drops, transcription delays, and human handoff conditions without duplicating or replaying signals. Each signal should be stamped with context identifiers—interaction ID, stage, and timestamp—so downstream systems cannot misapply it outside its valid scope.

Architecturally, preserving signal integrity also means resisting the urge to enrich signals mid-flight. Enrichment belongs in analysis layers, not in execution paths. When routing pipelines mutate signals by attaching historical data or inferred attributes, they dilute the very evidence required for governed action. Clean routing keeps signals narrow, current, and authoritative.

• Single decision spine: evaluate intent once before triggering any action.
• Context stamping: attach interaction identifiers and timestamps to every signal.
• Failure awareness: handle drops and delays without replaying stale signals.
• Execution isolation: keep enrichment out of real-time routing paths.

When routing preserves signal integrity end to end, execution authority remains intact as the system scales. The next section examines what happens when these principles are ignored, and the specific failure modes caused by incomplete or delayed data inputs.

Failure Modes Caused by Incomplete or Delayed Data Inputs

Incomplete data is not a minor inconvenience in autonomous sales systems; it is a direct trigger for unsafe execution. When required signals are missing—such as voicemail detection state, current call disposition, transcript freshness, or confirmation responses—the closer is forced into inference. Inference at scale produces inconsistent outcomes: sometimes the system “gets lucky,” and sometimes it executes prematurely or stalls inexplicably. Either way, the system stops being governable because actions can no longer be traced to validated inputs.

Delayed inputs create a more deceptive failure because the data eventually arrives, giving the illusion that the system is “fine.” In reality, authority is time-bound. A commitment cue that arrives late may be acted on after the buyer has already shifted to uncertainty. A resolved objection may be interpreted as unresolved because the transcript captured the question but not the answer in time. These timing distortions cause misrouting, duplicated prompts, and incorrect escalation logic. They also contaminate logs, making troubleshooting harder because the record no longer matches the lived conversation.

End-to-end reliability requires treating missingness and staleness as explicit system states. Autonomous closers must detect when inputs are absent, delayed, or outside valid decision windows and respond conservatively: pause, clarify, or exit gracefully rather than proceed. This is a foundational principle in end-to-end platform requirements, where execution is engineered around deterministic guarantees, not optimistic assumptions about data availability.

The engineering remedy is to encode guardrails directly into the execution layer: hard freshness thresholds, dependency checks before action, and observable failure events. If a required input is missing, the system should explicitly transition into a “cannot authorize execution” state with a logged reason. If an input arrives late, it should be rejected for execution use while still being retained for analysis. This approach replaces silent failure with governed restraint and protects both buyer experience and operator trust.

• Dependency checks: block execution unless required signals are present.
• Staleness rejection: refuse late inputs for execution while retaining them for analysis.
• Explicit safe states: transition to pause or clarify when authority cannot be established.
• Failure logging: treat missing and delayed inputs as first-class observable events.

When data gaps are handled explicitly, autonomous closing stops behaving unpredictably under real-world conditions. The next section explains why unified context consistently outperforms fragmented tool stacks and how shared state prevents missingness, delay, and duplication from corrupting execution authority.

Why Unified Context Outperforms Fragmented Sales Tool Stacks

Unified context is the prerequisite for reliable execution authority in autonomous sales. When conversation state, signal interpretation, and action logic are distributed across disconnected tools, no single system possesses a complete view of buyer intent. Each component makes local decisions based on partial information, forcing the closer to reconcile inconsistencies that should never exist. Fragmentation turns autonomy into coordination overhead.

Fragmented stacks typically arise from incremental adoption: one system handles calling, another manages transcripts, a third stores CRM records, and yet another triggers automation. Individually, each tool may perform well, but collectively they introduce latency, duplication, and context loss. Signals observed in one layer arrive stripped of nuance in another, while execution logic operates on abstractions rather than evidence. Strategic frameworks around executive sales data models highlight that alignment failures at this level directly correlate with inconsistent revenue outcomes.

A unified context model consolidates perception, interpretation, and execution into a shared state space. Voice telemetry, transcription output, prompt state, and decision thresholds are evaluated against the same live interaction record. This allows intent confirmation logic to reason deterministically, applying consistent rules regardless of which subsystem produced the signal. Unified context does not eliminate complexity; it localizes it so that decisions remain coherent.

From an operational standpoint, unified context simplifies governance. Auditing decisions becomes straightforward because every action maps to a single interaction timeline. Policy updates propagate uniformly, and failure analysis focuses on signal quality rather than tool synchronization. Most importantly, unified context restores trust: teams can rely on the system to act consistently because it is never forced to guess which version of reality is correct.

• Context consolidation: evaluate all signals against a single live interaction state.
• Latency reduction: remove handoffs that delay or distort intent signals.
• Decision coherence: apply uniform rules across perception and execution.
• Governance clarity: audit actions within one consistent timeline.

Once context is unified, scaling autonomy becomes a question of capacity rather than coordination. The next section examines how data-informed capacity planning allows autonomous closers to scale without sacrificing execution accuracy.

Scaling Closing Accuracy Through Data Informed Sales Capacity

Scaling autonomous closing is not a function of adding more calls, more agents, or more automation. It is a function of aligning execution capacity with validated intent. When systems scale without regard to signal quality, they amplify error. When they scale based on governed data, they amplify reliability. Data-informed capacity planning ensures that autonomous closers operate within bounds that preserve execution accuracy as volume increases.

Capacity becomes predictable when execution authority is granted only after intent confirmation. Rather than flooding pipelines with speculative actions, the system meters activity based on readiness signals observed in real time. This allows organizations to allocate compute resources, telephony concurrency, and human escalation bandwidth proportionally to actual demand. Approaches built around data-informed sales capacity emphasize that scale should follow validated opportunity, not precede it.

From an operational engineering view, this requires integrating intent thresholds into scheduling logic, call concurrency limits, and escalation queues. Timeouts, retry policies, and voicemail detection must all respect capacity constraints informed by live signal flow. When readiness signals spike, the system expands within predefined limits; when signals drop, it contracts automatically. This dynamic adjustment prevents both overload and underutilization.

Critically, data-informed capacity protects buyer experience as systems scale. Buyers encounter consistent pacing, appropriate follow-up timing, and interactions that reflect readiness rather than pressure. Internally, teams gain confidence that growth will not degrade outcomes. Scaling becomes a controlled process governed by evidence instead of optimism.

• Intent-based throttling: scale actions only when validated demand exists.
• Dynamic allocation: adjust resources in response to real-time signal flow.
• Guarded expansion: enforce limits that preserve execution accuracy.
• Experience consistency: maintain buyer trust as volume increases.

With capacity governed by data, autonomous closing can scale without losing discipline. The final section brings these principles together, outlining how intent-gated systems execute reliably without guesswork and why unified architecture is the only sustainable foundation for autonomy.

Designing Intent Gated Systems That Execute Without Guesswork

Intent-gated execution is the architectural conclusion of everything discussed so far. When autonomous sales systems fail, they fail because actions are triggered by inference rather than authorization. Designing systems that execute without guesswork requires treating intent as a permission state that must be explicitly earned, validated, and maintained throughout the interaction. This shifts autonomy from a probabilistic behavior to a governed operational capability.

At a system level, intent gating is implemented by embedding decision checkpoints directly into the execution flow. These checkpoints evaluate live signals—voice telemetry, transcription freshness, conversational markers, and timing alignment—against deterministic thresholds. If the criteria are met, execution proceeds. If not, the system pauses, clarifies, or exits. There is no fallback to “best guess.” This design discipline is what allows autonomous closers to act confidently without exceeding their authority.

Operationally, intent-gated systems are easier to govern and improve. Because every action is tied to explicit signals and thresholds, outcomes can be audited, thresholds refined, and policies adjusted without retraining intuition or rewriting entire workflows. Engineering teams gain observability into why decisions were made, while leadership gains confidence that autonomy is aligned with business risk tolerance and buyer expectations.

The commercial implication is that revenue becomes repeatable rather than accidental. Autonomous systems stop behaving like enthusiastic juniors and start behaving like disciplined closers. Capacity is deployed only where readiness exists, buyer trust is preserved, and execution scales without erosion. Organizations that adopt this model transition from automation-led volume to intent-led performance, supported by transparent economics such as data-driven sales pricing.

• Permission-based action: execute only when intent thresholds are satisfied.
• Deterministic checkpoints: replace inference with governed decision rules.
• Audit-ready logic: trace every action back to validated signals.
• Scalable confidence: grow autonomy without increasing execution risk.

Ultimately, an AI sales closer does not succeed because it speaks well or moves fast. It succeeds because it knows when it is allowed to act. Unified architecture, real-time signals, and intent-gated execution form the foundation of that authority—and without them, autonomy is indistinguishable from guesswork.