Why agentic payments keep breaking. The IMF just put a name to it

The IMF published a formal note on agentic payments last month. One framing stuck with me more than the rest: "Payment systems must reconcile two fundamentally different design logics: the adaptive, probabilistic nature of agentic AI systems and the deterministic requirements of financial market infrastructures". That's the clearest I've seen it put for why you can't just bolt an agent onto a payment flow and call it done. Payment systems are built on the assumption that what was authorized is what happens. The IMF frames the practical shift as moving from "click to pay" to "decide to pay": the agent discovers the path to a goal rather than following a specified one, and execution increasingly happens at machine speed across multiple layers. That distinction changes everything about where failure lives. From production tests I've done in payment related workflows, most failures aren't model failures or integration failures, they're actually architecture failures. Someone tied to fit probabilistic execution into deterministic rails without resolving that tension at the planning stage. The IMF's three layer framing (intent, authorization, settlement) is a useful support for where that tension lives. Intent is where the agent operates. Authorization and settlement are where determinism has to win. Is anyone designing agent payment flows around this distinction from the very beginning? Or is everyone retrofitting after the first production incident?