How Do You Prove an AI Agent’s On-Chain Action Was Authorized?

When an agent sends an on-chain transaction, the transaction hash tells us what happened. It does not, by itself, show who approved that specific action or whether execution matched what they approved.
I’m building PriorSeal to connect those pieces. A user or organization authorizes an EVM action with an EIP-712 signature (or an ERC-1271 contract-account signature). For an exact-call authorization, the signed intent can specify the chain, executor, transaction nonce, target, calldata hash, and native value. After execution, PriorSeal observes the transaction and produces a signed receipt describing how the observed call relates to the authorization.
Consider a treasury agent preparing a swap. The principal can approve the exact call before the agent submits it. Later, a verifier can check the authorization, receipt, execution status, and call match. If the observed action differs, the evidence should say so explicitly; a valid signature alone does not make a mismatched execution compliant.
PriorSeal provides a TypeScript SDK, a web console, and local receipt verification. It does not custody assets, sign transactions for the agent, or submit them. Integrators must place authorization checks on their actual signing path if they want those checks to govern execution.
Risk assessment and authorization are different questions. PriorSeal can bind a digest of an external assessment—such as an Insight check—into an exact-call intent while keeping each system’s evidence independently verifiable.
What evidence would you require before letting an agent move funds on behalf of a user or organization?
Website:https://priorseal.xyz/
GitHub:https://github.com/imokokok/PriorSeal.git