EAAPL · ARCHITECTURE DIFFWhat changed?
What changed?
What now matters?
Compare two system states. EAAPL identifies new authority, data exposure and control requirements instead of treating architecture as a static diagram.
BEFORE
AFTER
CONTROL COVERAGE54% → 18%decreased
SEMANTIC DELTAS3capability changes
NEW FINDINGS3introduced
STATUSREVIEWchange impact
01 · SEMANTIC DIFF
What actually changed in system authority.
+1
External tool/MCP authority introducedThis changes the control and assurance boundary.
+2
Autonomous execution introducedThis changes the control and assurance boundary.
+3
Human approval boundary removedThis changes the control and assurance boundary.
02 · CONTROL IMPACT
What the change now requires.
+
Human Approval GatewayCRITICAL · Approval policy + decision record + signed action traceImplementation pattern →
+
Scoped Agent IdentityHIGH · Workload identity policy + permission snapshotImplementation pattern →
+
Agent Runtime GuardrailsHIGH · Runtime limits + kill-switch test + budget telemetryImplementation pattern →
03 · NEW ATTACK SURFACE
Paths introduced after the change.
!
Indirect prompt injection to business tooldata → agent → toolRetrieved content can influence the agent and propagate into a privileged tool invocation.
04 · TARGET DELTA
Controls to insert before approval.
+
Scoped Agent IdentityBetween agent and every external toolPROOF · Identity policy + permission snapshot
+
Runtime GuardrailAround autonomous execution loopPROOF · Runtime policy + kill-switch test + budget telemetry
ARCHITECTURE DECISION
The architecture changed. Its assurance case changed with it.
EAAPL compares authority, data exposure, autonomous capability, attack paths and required proof—not just boxes and arrows.