A citizen-facing agent at an agency answers a published FAQ, yet its grounding permission also lets it read case notes the FAQ does not use. What should the architect change?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
The information booth does not need the key to the case file room. You narrow the agent's grounding permission to the published FAQ and take away the case notes. A sentence in the prompt does not lock a drawer the agent can already open.
Full Explanation
Grounding permission should match the job. This agent answers a published FAQ, and the case notes are not required for that FAQ, so the permission is narrowed to the FAQ and the case-note access is removed. Widening the permission to investigator files and unfiled drafts gives the citizen agent a larger pile of material it still does not need. Leaving the case notes in place and adding a prompt line that says not to quote them leaves the notes readable, and a prompt is not an access control on retrieved text. Copying the case notes onto the public FAQ page publishes material the FAQ was not meant to show and makes the over-broad permission look intentional. Exam caveat: staff who work cases may still need those notes in a different agent, and narrowing this citizen agent does not delete the notes. Operational check: ask the citizen agent a question whose answer exists only in a case note and confirm it cannot read that note, then ask a published FAQ question and confirm it still answers. Review the permission list and confirm the case-note source is absent while the published FAQ source remains.