AI-Agent Redesign Heuristics (2026) — re-reading the 2005 catalogue for the agentic era

A synthesis that takes up the open call in Dumas, Milani & Chapela-Campa (2026, p. 45) for an "agentic extension of the classical Reijers & Liman-Mansar redesign heuristics." It reinterprets the 29 heuristics of Reijers & Liman Mansar (2005) in light of (i) software agents executing the Perceive–Reason–Act loop within normative frames (APM Manifesto, Calvanese et al. 2026) and (ii) generative/agentic AI as a process performer (A-BPMS keynote, Dumas et al. 2026). Companion HTML map: assets/ai-agent-heuristics-devils-quadrangle.html.

Why redo this work in 2026?

Three forces unsettle the 2005 catalogue's trade-off profiles:

The marginal cost of cognition collapses. Heuristics like parallelism, triage, task automation, buffering, contact reduction were costed against scarce human attention. Once an LLM-mediated agent supplies cognition on demand, several of those costs fall close to zero — and others (latency, hallucination, alignment) appear where they did not exist before.
The actor stops being passive. Calvanese et al. (2026) insist that APM treats agents as primary functional entities with goals and the autonomy to perceive, reason and act inside an explicit frame. Heuristics that prescribe which resource performs a task (specialist/generalist, case manager, empower, order assignment) acquire a new degree of freedom: the resource itself can negotiate the frame.
Design-time and run-time fuse. Elyasaf et al. (2025) split self-modification into adaptation (instance-level, ephemeral) and evolution (cross-instance, persistent). A "heuristic" therefore has two enactment surfaces: it can be applied at redesign time by a human modeller, or it can be applied at runtime by a self-modifying agent. The 2005 catalogue assumed only the former; the prescriptive-monitoring literature (side-by-side mapping) covered ≈10/29 at runtime. APM extends the runtime surface further.

The result is not a fresh catalogue replacing 2005 but a re-reading. Reijers & Liman Mansar's seven framework elements still hold; the devil's quadrangle still scaffolds the trade-off conversation. What changes is (a) the direction and magnitude of each dimension, (b) the failure modes that previously did not exist, and (c) the set of additional heuristics the catalogue must absorb to remain complete.

Three editorial moves

For each 2005 heuristic this synthesis assigns one of four reinterpretation tags:

Tag	Meaning
R — re-anchored	The lever still pulls in the same direction. What changes is the actor (an agent, not a human) or the substrate (a frame, not a process diagram). Trade-off profile largely preserved.
A — amplified	The lever becomes structurally cheaper or faster to operate in the agent era. The 2005 trade-off bites less; a heuristic that was discretionary in 1995 is close to default in 2026.
I — inverted / re-priced	The trade-off direction flips on at least one axis, or new costs (alignment, hallucination, audit) appear that the 2005 four-axis quadrangle does not name.
N — newly enacted at runtime	The 2005 catalogue placed this heuristic at design time. In an agentic system the same lever is now pulled per-case by an agent under its frame.

A heuristic may carry more than one tag (e.g., R + N: same direction, now run-time).

The devil's quadrangle, re-defined for agents

The four axes survive but their operational referents shift:

2005 axis	Classical referent	Agent-era referent (2026)
Time	Cycle, lead, waiting time (human-bound)	Wall-clock + agent latency (model inference, tool round-trips, plan-revise loops); waiting time often collapses to milliseconds, but plan-revise can re-introduce it.
Cost	Operational cost per case (labour + tooling)	Labour + token / inference cost + tool-call cost + verification cost (a "judge" pass is now a meaningful line item).
Quality	External (customer-perceived) and internal (defect-free)	Adds hallucination rate, frame-violation rate, alignment quality, explainability; defects are now sometimes plausible-but-wrong, a class the 2005 quadrangle does not name.
Flexibility	Ability to handle variation / change	Variation handled by [[concepts/framed-autonomy

Two cross-cutting tensions appear that the 2005 four-axis model does not absorb cleanly and that this synthesis flags explicitly in every reinterpretation:

Auditability / verifiability. Behaviour is now non-deterministic. A trade-off axis the quadrangle hides under "quality." See Fournier et al. (2025) on agent observability.
Safety / alignment. Agents may take unintended actions inside their permission set. Calvanese et al. (2025) treat the normative frame as the bearer of safety.

These are not new axes of the quadrangle in this synthesis — they are dimension-of-quality refinements the agent era forces into view. Future work may justify a five- or six-pointed devil's polygon; here we stay faithful to the 1995 scaffold and treat them as quality sub-axes.

Part A — The 29 heuristics, reinterpreted

Each entry is structured: element · tag(s) · agent-era reading · revised devil's-quadrangle profile (↑ improves the dimension, ↓ degrades it, — neutral) · new failure modes.

Customers (3)

1. Control relocation — Customers · R, N. Move controls to the customer side. In 2005 this meant self-service kiosks and customer-completed forms. In 2026 the customer's own agent (their personal assistant) negotiates with the firm's agent via MCP/ACP. Quality ↑ (customer's agent enforces the customer's preferences); cost ↓ (the firm pays neither for staff nor for kiosk hardware); time ↑ (round-trips are millisecond-cheap); flexibility ↑ (the customer's agent absorbs format variance). New failure modes: the firm now depends on an opposing optimisation — the customer's agent maximises the customer's objective, not theirs; gaming and prompt-injection become first-order risks.

2. Contact reduction — Customers · I. The 2005 heuristic told you to cut the number of touchpoints because each touchpoint was expensive. In 2026 contact is essentially free, 24/7, and conversational. The trade-off direction inverts: maximise meaningful contact at zero marginal cost, but minimise contact cost per useful exchange by routing trivial contact to agents and reserving humans for irreducible cases. Time ↑, cost ↓ for routine contact, quality variable (depends on hallucination rate), flexibility ↑. New failure modes: contact inflation (the agent invites itself into the customer's flow), over-personalisation, GDPR exposure on conversational logs.

3. Integration — Customers · A. JIT integration with the customer's workflow used to be a one-off engineering effort. With MCP/ACP it is the default integration mode. Cost ↓↓, time ↓, flexibility ↑↑, quality depends on tool reliability. New failure modes: transitive trust through tool chains; an agent that is integrated with eight tools inherits the worst guarantees of any of them.

Products (0)

Reijers & Liman Mansar left this category empty in 2005. The agent era populates it for the first time, primarily because information products (recommendations, summaries, drafts) are now generated at point of use:

0a. Product personalisation at request time (new) — the product is generated per-customer, per-request, from a generic substrate. See concepts/conversational-actionability. Devil's quadrangle: time ↑ (no inventory), cost ↓ for variants, quality ↑ on fit, flexibility ↑↑. New failure modes: unverifiable claims inside the product, IP attribution, training-data leakage.

Business Process Operation view (5)

4. Order types — Operation · A, N. Splitting flows by order type used to be a routing rule maintained by analysts. Agents now infer order type from the case context and route per case. Time ↑, quality ↑ on fit, cost ↓↓ on rule maintenance, flexibility ↑. New failure modes: silent re-routing (the agent picks a variant that was never validated end-to-end).

5. Task elimination — Operation · A, N. Process-observability makes it trivial to see which steps add no value across runtime trajectories. Self-modifying agents can propose elimination candidates (Elyasaf et al. 2025, evolution mode). Time ↑↑, cost ↓↓, quality conditional on whether the eliminated step carried a hidden check, flexibility neutral. New failure modes: Chesterton's Fence — agents eliminate steps whose purpose was implicit; load-bearing checks vanish into the metric.

6. Order-based work — Operation · A. Batch processing was a workaround for human / machine setup cost. Agents have zero setup cost between cases; order-based is the natural mode. Time ↓↓, cost ↓, quality ↑, flexibility ↑. New failure modes: loss of throughput economies in genuinely batchable downstream resources (e.g., manufacturing).

7. Triage — Operation · A, N. The classic high-value example for predictive process monitoring; now it is continuous, learned, multi-axis triage on every case (concepts/prescriptive-process-monitoring). Cost ↓, time ↓, quality ↑, flexibility ↑. New failure modes: triage bias inherits from training data; protected-attribute proxies create discrimination risk (EU AI Act exposure).

8. Task composition — Operation · I. Composing small tasks into one large task was a 2005 win for hand-off elimination. With agents the reverse often pays: decompose monoliths into small, individually verifiable subtasks each handled by a specialist sub-agent under a verification pattern (Dumas et al. 2026 §4 Verification pattern). Direction flips on cost (decomposition adds verification calls), but quality ↑↑ and trustability ↑. New failure modes: over-decomposition produces orchestration overhead and context-window thrash.

Business Process Behaviour view (4)

9. Resequencing — Behaviour · A, N. Already a runtime primitive in PrPM (syntheses/redesign-heuristics-vs-prpm); agents extend it to planning at every step. Time ↑, cost ↓, flexibility ↑↑, quality depends on plan stability. New failure modes: plan thrashing — successive small re-plans cancel each other out, producing zero net progress.

10. Parallelism — Behaviour · A. Spawning parallel sub-agents is a one-line operation. Buzacott's caveat (parallelism beats sequential only when individual job time dominates throughput) is largely dissolved by elastic compute. Time ↓↓, cost ↑ on inference, flexibility ↑, quality ↑ via diversity of attempts. New failure modes: cost runaway on naively parallel agent swarms; conflict-resolution overhead between siblings.

11. Knock-out — Behaviour · A, N. Ordering knock-out tests cheapest-first becomes predicted-probability-first: agents can call a cheap classifier on each candidate test and reorder. Time ↑, cost ↓. New failure modes: a fast cheap classifier may itself hallucinate the knock-out decision; calibration drift over time. Pair with a confidence threshold (see Hallucination knock-out, Part B).

12. Exception — Behaviour · I. Isolating exceptional cases to a separate flow was a 2005 win because exceptions were expensive for human handlers. Agents are often equally productive on exceptions and on happy-path cases — the marginal cost of handling a rare exception falls. The heuristic's premise weakens: let agents absorb exceptions in-line until volume / risk justifies escalation. Time ↑, cost ↓, flexibility ↑, quality conditional on adequacy of the agent's tail-coverage. New failure modes: silent tail-coverage degradation — the agent says "I handled it" when it actually failed in a way no human handler would have.

Organization — structure (7)

13. Order assignment — Org. structure · R, N. Case ownership end-to-end now means assigning a dedicated agent instance to a case, with its own conversation history and frame. Time ↑, quality ↑, flexibility ↑. New failure modes: instance leakage between cases (context bleed); orphaned instances when a case stalls.

14. Flexible assignment — Org. structure · A, N. Late-binding of resource to task is essentially free; agents are spawnable on demand. The 2005 trade-off (defer ↓ queue time, ↑ quality, ↑ flexibility) becomes the default mode, not an alternative to be chosen. New failure modes: non-determinism — the same case routed at two moments hits two different agent versions; reproducibility costs.

15. Centralization — Org. structure · A. Centralised resource pools are the native shape of agent compute. Flexibility ↑, time ↑, cost ↓. New failure modes: single-vendor or single-model lock-in; correlated failures (one model regression takes down all agent-mediated processes simultaneously).

16. Split responsibilities — Org. structure · R. Clean responsibility boundaries between agents map naturally to multi-agent orchestration patterns (Dumas 2026 §4: Sequential, Routing, Managerial). Time ↑, quality ↑, flexibility ↑. New failure modes: inter-agent miscommunication and goal drift — each agent optimises locally, the system globally drifts.

17. Customer teams — Org. structure · A. A per-customer or per-segment "team" becomes a per-customer agent persona with retained memory of that customer's history. Cost ↓↓ (cheap to instantiate many personas), time ↑, flexibility ↑, quality ↑ on relationship continuity. New failure modes: persona drift; memory leakage between customers (the GDPR / DORA failure mode).

18. Numerical involvement — Org. structure · I, N. In 2005 you minimised the number of people touching a case. In 2026 you minimise the number of actor-boundary crossings (human↔agent, agent↔agent), because each crossing is a context-transfer cost and a verification surface. The optimisation direction is preserved; the unit changes. New failure modes: invisible context-transfer loss between agents that "look like" they share state but don't.

19. Case manager — Org. structure · R, N. The 2005 "case manager" archetype — one accountable face visible to the customer, even if not performing the work — maps directly onto a conversational-actionability layer (concepts/conversational-actionability): an agent that holds the customer-facing thread while routing work to specialist sub-agents underneath. Quality ↑, customer-perceived continuity ↑, cost ↓ vs. dedicated human case managers. New failure modes: accountability dissolution — when the case manager is an agent, regulatory questions about who is responsible become live (EU AI Act, GDPR Art. 22, see syntheses/legal-risk-mapping-ai-process-automation).

Organization — population (4)

20. Extra resources — Org. population · A, N. Adding capacity at a bottleneck is an autoscaling call. Time ↑, flexibility ↑, cost ↑ proportional to inference volume. New failure modes: bottleneck moves invisibly to the verifier / human-in-the-loop step; capacity added at the wrong layer.

21. Specialist–generalist — Org. population · R, A, N. Cheap to instantiate both. The 2005 mutually exclusive choice (specialists for time, generalists for flexibility) dissolves — agents can be both, sequenced or composed per case. Time ↑, flexibility ↑↑. New failure modes: quality drift when a generalist agent over-extends into specialist territory.

22. Empower — Org. population · R, I. "Empower workers, eliminate sign-offs" was a 2005 win for time and motivation. In 2026 the analogue is exactly framed autonomy — but the 2005 win is constrained rather than amplified: agents are too easy to empower, and the marginal cost of a sign-off (a verifier-agent pass) is so low that the right move is often to add rather than remove control. Direction partially inverts: time ↑, cost neutral, quality / safety ↑↑ with retained sign-off. New failure modes: unframed empowerment leads to plausible-but-wrong actions taken at machine speed.

23. Control addition — Org. population · A, N. Adding a checkpoint used to mean adding a person and a delay. Adding an agent-as-judge verification step costs cents and milliseconds. Quality ↑↑, time ↑ marginal, cost ↑ small. New failure modes: judge-LLM systematic bias correlated with generator-LLM bias (same training distribution).

Information (1)

24. Buffering — Information · A. Caching upstream so downstream doesn't refetch was the 2005 framing. In 2026 the analogues include the context window, RAG retrieval, and prompt caching — and the cost gradient is huge (cache hit ≈ 10% of cache miss in token cost). Time ↑, cost ↓↓. New failure modes: stale cache + plausible-sounding wrong answers; context-window poisoning.

Technology (2)

25. Task automation — Technology · R, I. The 2005 catalogue assumed automation = removing human labour from physical or transactional tasks. The agent era extends automation to cognitive / judgement tasks. Direction is preserved on time and cost; quality is conditional on task structure — agents excel at high-context, low-precision tasks and underperform at precise, low-context ones. New failure modes: automation bias in human supervisors (concepts/automation-bias); deskilling of human reviewers.

26. Integral business-process technology — Technology · R. The 2005 win (workflow systems, shared databases, expert systems) is now an A-BPMS platform (Dumas et al. 2026) — five layers, MCP integration, agentic orchestration. Time ↑, quality ↑, cost ↓ on lock-in horizon. New failure modes: platform monoculture; agent-platform vendor capture.

External Environment (3)

27. Trusted party — External · R. Defer to a third party's judgement. Today the third party is often another agent — a credit-scoring API, a verifier service, a registry. Cost ↓, time ↑. New failure modes: opaque liability when the trusted party is an LLM API.

28. Outsourcing — External · R. Outsource non-core work — to an external agent fleet or to an AI-as-a-service provider. Cost ↓, quality conditional. New failure modes: training-data confidentiality leaks; jurisdiction-of-data exposure.

29. Interfacing — External · A. Standardising inter-organisational interfaces is now a protocol problem solved by MCP/ACP and shared ontologies. Cost ↓↓, time ↑, quality ↑. New failure modes: prompt-injection across organisational boundaries; protocol-level supply-chain attacks.

Part B — New heuristics the 2005 catalogue does not contain

The agent era requires a small set of additions. Each is named, placed against the seven framework elements, and tagged against the devil's quadrangle. None of these has a 2005 predecessor.

B1 — Frame-first design (Organization — population / Organization — structure)

Before assigning tasks, specify the normative frame — obligations, permissions, prohibitions (concepts/framed-autonomy, sources/2025-calvanese-autonomy-business-process-execution). Without a frame, agent empowerment is reckless. Devil's quadrangle: quality ↑↑ (frame-violation ↓), flexibility ↑ (more autonomy is safe when framed), cost ↑ at design time, time ↑ at design time but ↓ at runtime. Failure mode: frame under-specification (the agent finds a path the frame did not forbid).

B2 — Verification-by-judge (Behaviour / Org. population)

Pair every agent that produces consequential output with a verifier agent that scores it against the frame. Generalises control addition (#23) and makes it a default. Devil's quadrangle: quality ↑↑, time ↑ marginal, cost ↑ small, flexibility neutral. Failure mode: correlated bias between generator and judge; the judge under-detects exactly the errors the generator over-produces.

B3 — Tool-mediated action (Technology / Org. structure)

Agents act only through declared tools with explicit scopes — never directly on production systems. Implements least-privilege and turns the action surface into an auditable inventory (Dumas et al. 2026 §3 action layer). Devil's quadrangle: quality ↑, cost ↑ (tool-build effort up-front), time ↑ at first deployment then ↓, flexibility ↑↑ on safe substitution. Failure mode: tool-set bloat; under-scoped tools that combine to authorise more than each does alone.

B4 — Trajectory observability (Information)

Log every agent's perception → reasoning trace → action sequence as first-class events (sources/2025-fournier-agentic-ai-process-observability). Pre-condition for both conformance checking against the frame and offline evaluation. Devil's quadrangle: quality ↑↑ (debuggable), cost ↑ (storage + redaction), time neutral, flexibility ↑ (you can refactor what you can see). Failure mode: sensitive data in traces (GDPR exposure).

B5 — Adaptation/evolution separation (Org. structure / Org. population)

Distinguish ephemeral instance-level adaptation from persistent model-level evolution (Elyasaf et al. 2025). Adaptations that recur and prove safe are promoted into evolutions; evolutions that prove unsafe are rolled back. Devil's quadrangle: flexibility ↑↑, quality ↑ (governance gate), cost ↑ marginal, time ↑ on promotion review. Failure mode: adaptation buildup — many one-off patches accumulate without ever being promoted, creating drift between the canonical process and the lived one.

B6 — Token / inference budget (Information / External Environment)

Cap inference cost per case and per session. Mirrors the operational-research idea of resource ceilings but applied to cognition. Devil's quadrangle: cost ↓↓ (predictable), time ↓ (caps run-away loops), quality ↓ on hard cases that need more thinking, flexibility neutral. Failure mode: the budget binds on exactly the cases that most need extra reasoning (high-value, edge cases).

B7 — Confidence-thresholded knock-out (Behaviour)

Specialisation of knock-out (#11). When an agent's self-reported (or externally calibrated) confidence falls below θ, stop and hand off rather than commit. Devil's quadrangle: quality ↑↑, time ↑ at θ-crossings, cost ↑ on handoff. Failure mode: mis-calibrated confidence (LLMs are often confidently wrong); requires periodic re-calibration.

B8 — Conversational handoff (Customers / Org. structure)

When the agent reaches its frame's boundary, hand back conversationally — to a human or to a more capable agent — without losing the customer-visible thread. Operationalises concepts/conversational-actionability under meaningful human oversight. Devil's quadrangle: quality ↑ (continuity), time ↑, cost ↑ (human time when invoked), flexibility ↑. Failure mode: premature handoff (every hard case to a human) or delayed handoff (the agent grinds past its competence).

B9 — Frame-respecting outsourcing (External Environment)

Specialisation of outsourcing (#28) and trusted party (#27): when work crosses an organisational boundary to another agent, propagate the frame with it (deontic constraints, data-handling clauses), not only the task. Devil's quadrangle: cost ↑ at integration time, quality ↑↑, flexibility ↑. Failure mode: frame loss in transit; receiving party silently relaxes constraints.

B10 — Determinism-by-request (Behaviour / Information)

For cases where reproducibility matters (regulatory, audit, recurrence), pin the agent's state — model version, seed, retrieval snapshot — so the same case yields the same trajectory. Devil's quadrangle: quality ↑ (auditability), time ↑ marginal, flexibility ↓ (you can't pick the best newer model mid-case), cost ↑ on snapshot retention. Failure mode: pinning to a deprecated model long after support has lapsed.

Part C — Reading the catalogue against the devil's quadrangle (summary)

Counting tags across the 29 + 10 entries (39 total) by their dominant reinterpretation:

Amplified (A): ≈14 — the largest class. The agent era makes cheap what was expensive: parallelism, triage, contact, buffering, late-binding, interfacing, customer teams, automation. The 2005 trade-offs become weaker; what was a careful decision becomes close to a default.
Re-anchored (R): ≈11 — same direction, new actor. Case manager, split responsibilities, trusted party, outsourcing, automation, integral BP technology. These are continuities, not novelties.
Inverted / re-priced (I): ≈5 — contact reduction, task composition, exception isolation, empower, numerical involvement. Each carries a trade-off direction that flips on at least one axis because the underlying cost structure changed.
Newly enacted at runtime (N): ≈13 — heuristics now pulled per-case by an agent, often in addition to design-time enactment. Many of these were the same ones identified as PrPM analogues in the 2005-vs-PrPM mapping (#4, #5, #7, #9, #11, #14, #21, #23, etc.) — but APM widens the runtime surface beyond PrPM's case-level interventions.

The new heuristics (B1–B10) cluster heavily on quality improvements — frame, verification, observability, confidence, determinism — because the dominant agent-era trade-off is not time/cost (which the agents collapse) but trust. The devil's quadrangle still applies; most agent-era trade-offs are paid in the quality axis, especially in its hidden sub-axes (alignment, auditability, calibration, frame-respect).

Part D — Three principles for using this catalogue

The trade-off direction is now per-case, not per-process. A heuristic that improves quality on the happy-path case may degrade it on a tail case (e.g., exception in-line #12). Always read the heuristic in the context of the case distribution, and where feasible let an PrPM / agentic policy decide which heuristic to apply per case.
Quality is the binding axis. Where 2005's binding axis was usually time or cost, the agent era's binding axis is quality-as-trust. Plan the trade-off conversation around the quality sub-axes (hallucination, frame-violation, alignment, auditability) that 2005 left unnamed.
The catalogue is a frame, not a script. Calvanese et al. (2026)'s critique of activity-centric notation applies here too: the right unit of redesign is not "which heuristic do I apply" but "what frame governs the agent, and which heuristics fall out of that frame as obligations vs. permissions?" Heuristic empower (#22) becomes "what does the frame permit?"; control addition (#23) becomes "what does the frame oblige?"; frame-first design (B1) is the meta-heuristic that subsumes the rest.

Practical artefacts

HTML overview map. A self-contained pedagogical visualisation that places the (relevant) 2005 heuristics and the new B1–B10 against the four-axis devil's quadrangle, colour-coded by reinterpretation tag, with hover/expand reinterpretation notes: assets/ai-agent-heuristics-devils-quadrangle.html. The HTML's Part D carries a second-pass paper-angle brainstorm (six low-empiricism angles anchored in the Riess research arc + two horizon-expanding moves into formal-methods / philosophy-of-science adjacent communities); it replaces the first-pass brainstorm that was empirically heavy.
Side-by-side with PrPM. The runtime-analogue gap analysis in syntheses/redesign-heuristics-vs-prpm is the natural companion: it identifies the ≈10/29 heuristics already enacted at runtime by PrPM; this synthesis widens that runtime surface to the full 29 + 10 under the APM frame.
BPM-evolution narrative. Place this synthesis inside the seven-phase BPM arc of Phases and BPR legacy — it is the deliverable of Phase 6 (agentic era) against the Phase 1 anchor (BPR).

Caveats and limits

Speculative where deployment data is thin. Vu et al. (2025) report that no studied practitioner had hands-on agentic BPM experience yet. Several of the "amplified" claims rest on architectural plausibility and prototype evidence rather than longitudinal field data. This synthesis should be revisited when post-2026 deployment case studies accumulate.
Technology-only scope, preserved from 2005. The 2005 paper explicitly restricted scope to the technical challenge of redesign; this synthesis preserves that scope. The socio-cultural integration challenges of agentic BPM (job displacement, automation-bias-on-supervisors, accountability) are sketched only as new failure modes per heuristic. The broader socio-cultural agenda lives in syntheses/apm-business-themes and the legal-risk synthesis (syntheses/legal-risk-mapping-ai-process-automation).
Quadrangle pressure. Several reinterpretations stretch the four-axis quadrangle (alignment, auditability, calibration). A future deliverable may justify a five- or six-pointed devil's polygon. For now we stay faithful to Brand & van der Kolk (1995) and Reijers & Liman Mansar (2005) and treat the new dimensions as quality sub-axes.

Concepts: concepts/bpr-heuristics · concepts/devils-quadrangle · concepts/agentic-bpm · concepts/framed-autonomy · concepts/self-modification · concepts/conversational-actionability · concepts/explainability-apm · concepts/perceive-reason-act · concepts/agentic-bpm-pyramid · concepts/prescriptive-process-monitoring

Methods: methods/process-redesign-heuristics · methods/agent-oriented-process-mining

Sources: sources/2005-reijers-limanmansar-best-practices-bpr · sources/2026-calvanese-agentic-bpm-manifesto · sources/2026-dumas-agentic-bpms-pyramid · sources/2025-calvanese-autonomy-business-process-execution · sources/2025-elyasaf-self-modifying-abps · sources/2025-fournier-agentic-ai-process-observability · sources/2025-vu-practitioner-perspectives-agent-governance · sources/2022-kubrak-prescriptive-ppm-slr

Sibling syntheses: syntheses/redesign-heuristics-vs-prpm (the PrPM-runtime mapping this work extends) · syntheses/bpm-phases-and-bpr-legacy (the seven-phase arc) · syntheses/apm-manifesto-core-messages · syntheses/apm-business-themes · syntheses/legal-risk-mapping-ai-process-automation