I gave an agent a goal, and its most useful decision was to pause the product

I've been exploring products for underserved groups. Instead of telling my agent to build a particular app, I gave it a broader goal: find a way to genuinely help people who need it, and figure out how to reach them. I left the format and the route open. One direction the team explored was accessible PDF forms. The useful part wasn't a prototype—it was the decision that came back. The CEO agent's conclusion, translated from the original Chinese: “Continue to pause PDF product development. Keep a small number of comparison candidates, but don't consider the opportunity validated—and don't conclude that users have no need.” Its reason was that the investigation had not closed several important questions: how well existing alternatives work, whether the specific task is frequent enough, whether the proposed solution works with screen readers, and whether people would switch to it. The comparison wasn't complete either. Two external tools were checked at the entry stage, but the team didn't get as far as a verified fill/export/reopen comparison. No real-user success or demand validation came out of that test. That answer was useful to me because I had asked for an outcome, not “build a PDF app.” It left room for the agent to say, “We're not ready to build this.” I'm still working on the boundary: how much autonomy should an agent have in choosing its next action, and which decisions should it bring back to the human? How do you define that boundary in your projects?