The risk agent quantified an exposure and proposed a treatment. The reasoning looks plausible, but I’m the one who signs it off and I don’t want to rubber-stamp something I don’t understand. In a compliance setting, being wrong is expensive. How are other people sanity-checking agent output before they act on it?
Good instinct, and it’s exactly how the tools are meant to be used: the agent drafts, you commit. Nothing is written to your registers without showing you the change first and waiting for an explicit yes. So “I’m not sure” is a valid answer that stops the change, not a blocker you have to work around. To check a treatment, ask it to show its working: which risk it’s treating, the assumptions behind the numbers, and what residual risk is left after. If the assumptions match your reality, commit it. If they don’t, tell it what’s off and it’ll re-reason. You stay the decision-maker; the agent just does the legwork and shows you the receipts.