Each agent passes its governance review. Who checks them against each other?

Most of the AI governance work I see happens one agent at a time: what it can access, what it's allowed to do, where a human has to approve, what gets logged. That all makes sense. What I keep getting stuck on is what happens between agents. Here's an example. A procurement agent is allowed to expedite orders to protect a service level. A finance agent is allowed to freeze spending when a cost center goes over budget. Each one is doing exactly what it was approved to do. Then one afternoon, the procurement agent books expedited freight against a cost center the finance agent froze an hour earlier. Neither agent broke a rule, but the company still made a commitment it didn't want. I asked a version of this in r/ITManagers, and the strongest pushback was fair: if your rules live in one properly configured system, fix the config. For deterministic workflows, I agree. I'm less sure that applies to agents. They decide at runtime based on context, they often work across tools owned by different teams, and change management usually reviews each one separately. For people doing governance work: \- Does your review look at how agents interact with each other, or only at each agent on its own? \- When two approved agents conflict, who decides which one wins, and does that get decided before it happens or after? \- Is anyone actually testing for this, or does it still show up first in the incident review? Full disclosure: I'm building something in this space. I'm asking to learn how people handle it today, not to pitch. No links here.