# Commander's intent is a behaviour policy: what changed in v1.1.0, sgit.ai > The changes to the article "Commander's intent is a behaviour policy" in v1.1.0, paragraph by paragraph. *Source: · sgit.ai v0.7.87 · this file is generated from the same content as the page, so the two cannot drift. Every page on this site has a `.md` twin; internal links below point at them.* --- [Home](../../../index.md) / [Articles](../../index.md) / [Commander's intent is a behaviour policy](../../commanders-intent-is-a-behaviour-policy.md) / [Versions](../commanders-intent-is-a-behaviour-policy.md) / v1.1.0 # Commander's intent is a behaviour policy: what changed in v1.1.0 From v1.0.0 (2026-10-14, `915fd959b`) to v1.1.0 (2026-10-18, `de821285d`), paragraph by paragraph. 0 paragraphs added, 0 removed, 1 changed in place, 55 unchanged. About 0 words added and 7 removed. Insertions are marked like this, deletions like this; unchanged runs are folded to one line; figures appear as their file names. [all versions](../commanders-intent-is-a-behaviour-policy.md) 1 unchanged paragraph Summary: Josh Devon of Sondera published an article today that Istatesthink is one of the clearest statements ofclearly the problem we keep writing about. Agents do not go rogue; they follow the instructions they were given and fill the gaps with whatever gets the job done. The military solved this a long time ago with commander's intent, the objective and its limits written down together, and agents inherited the initiative and none of the limits. His answer is to write the limits about effects, not actions, compile them into rules a machine can check, and enforce them outside the agent before every action. We are talking about the same thing in different words, so I joined the two vocabularies: twelve of their terms against ours, most of them the same idea, and two places where one side goes further. We go further up, into the business layer, where an agent's limits stop being universal and become how a company does invoices and who it is in dispute with. They go further in proof, compiling plain English into Cedar and checking it with a theorem prover. To show the two halves meeting, I wrote five rules as Cedar, their published example, two from this session's own policy, one from the skill policy I published today and two from our business layer, and evaluated fourteen requests against them. All fourteen came out as intended. The incidents behind their argument check out against Anthropic's and the UK AI Security Institute's own reports, with a few figures rounded differently. 54 unchanged paragraphs, under In short {#in-short}, The argument {#argument}, Two vocabularies, one idea {#crosswalk}… [all versions](../commanders-intent-is-a-behaviour-policy.md) --- *[Site index for agents](../../../llms.txt) · [HTML version](https://newsroom.sgit.ai/articles/versions/commanders-intent-is-a-behaviour-policy/v1.1.0.html)*