The limit existed and the money went anyway
Sixty-three catalogued incidents in which an agent ran past its budget, and 31,073 review comments of which developers threw away more than half.
How we Organise
Sixty-three times the limit was an intention and the money went anyway
Sixty-three confirmed production incidents have been assembled in which an AI agent ran past its budget, each backed by a quoted issue report. A budget library that refuses the mistake at compile time held where a runtime counter did not, on the delegation race that appears in eleven of them.
We tell clients that a spend limit counts only if it holds with nobody watching, and only if it has fired once in earnest. What stood behind that was reasoning. This is the first assembled population, and in every one of the sixty-three the limit existed as an intention while a retry loop spent the money. The catalogue holds the overruns somebody wrote up, not a sample of them all.
How we Build
Developers threw away more than half of what the agent told them
Of 31,073 review comments written by an agent across ten thousand pull requests, developers rejected 56.3 per cent, most as false positives, repeats, or comments about something the change did not touch. A small model predicted which ones would be rejected well enough to filter them.
Our advice is to let an agent handle what it can before a person opens the diff. The routing survives this. The reason we give for it does not, because every one of those comments reached a developer and more than half of what they read was invalid. A team can satisfy any check written against that routing and still leave its developers a majority-invalid queue, since the check never asks what share of the output survives. If your numbers look different, we would like to see them: transform@dromologue.ai.
How we Assure
Nothing today. The strongest candidate reported its own completeness figures as implementation behaviour rather than external validation.