A product manager supervises an agentic workflow that triages 300 weekly support tickets. Requirements are respond within 4 hours, include one help-center link, and never auto-close VIP accounts. Early runs look fast but a VIP was closed without a link. Which supervision check best confirms the agentic workflow meets requirements?

The correct supervision check is right because with 300 tickets weekly full manual review is infeasible and early speed masked two distinct failures, so a weekly sampled audit that jointly verifies 4-hour response, presence of a help-center link, and that no VIP was auto-closed directly tests the stated conjunction and would have caught the observed VIP closure without a link. The 24-hour compliance audit fails by threshold concept because it substitutes a common enterprise SLA for the scenario-specific 4-hour target and would therefore pass runs that violate timeliness while appearing rigorous on links and VIP protection. The CSAT-focused audit fails by outcome substitution because high satisfaction scores are a sound product health metric but do not prove that every sampled run contained the required link, allowing systematic omission to hide behind positive sentiment. The escalation-speed audit fails by action-type concept because fast human handoff for VIPs is good practice yet distinct from the prohibition on auto-closing VIP accounts, so a workflow could escalate quickly while still improperly closing the ticket. Exam caveat is to match all explicit numbers and prohibitions rather than selecting a plausible professional practice that drops or softens one, especially when distractors reuse two of three requirements to look complete. Practical check is to pull a stratified random sample including VIP-tagged tickets, timestamp first response versus creation, parse for help-center URLs, and flag any auto-closed VIP for root-cause review before reporting compliance.