We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
A skill being available doesn't mean the agent uses it
Hiten Shah's team has built 16 skills for competitive product marketing, and he asks a basic question: does a skill change the work once the model has it? He notes that Skills.sh reached one million skills and nearly 280 million installs in seven months, so availability "tells us very little about quality" . He cites a Vercel Next.js eval. The baseline agent passed 53%. Making a skill available left the score at 53%, partly because the agent skipped the skill in 56% of cases. Telling the agent explicitly when to use the skill raised it to 79%, and a compressed docs index in AGENTS.md reached 100%. He says one test can't settle how every skill should be designed .
His test is one PMs can reuse. Give the same model the same job and the same evidence, once with the skill and once without. Define what good looks like before the run, and keep the failures. If the model catches up, shrink the skill or remove it, and rerun the test whenever the model changes . He also writes each skill around the job it serves. For example, a CRM loss reason records what someone typed into the CRM, not why the buyer left. If nobody asked the buyer, the buyer's reason is unknown . In a demo, Claude without the skills treated an old source as recent and stated a guess as fact. With the skills, it dated every claim and noted what it couldn't see. The skills are MIT-licensed and work across Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and others .
ThoughtSpot: the eval is the new PRD
Francois Lopitaux (SVP Product, ThoughtSpot) told Mind the Product that "your eval system is almost becoming your PRD." It defines what good looks like and what to avoid, because a prompt-based product has no fixed UI to spec . Analytics answers have to be the same every time. So he uses LLMs only where they're needed and grounds them in a semantic layer that defines terms like "new customer" and "revenue". In his words, without that layer an LLM is "a new intern" that makes poor judgments . A few other points:
- Teams are organized by product "track," not by feature, so the people closest to customers decide what to build next .
- Pruning matters more now that code is cheap to generate .
- He expects smaller teams and a lower PM-to-developer ratio, as deciding what's worth building becomes the bottleneck .
- For a recent APM hire, he asked candidates for a Git repo and a video explaining the problem their code solves .
Product moves
- Gamma 5. Gamma concluded that its output looked "too similar to all the other AI tools." It started over and rebuilt for visual variety and brand fidelity across presentations, docs, social assets, and graphics .
- AI simulations. Lenny Rachitsky is following teams that use AI simulations to test product ideas and flow tweaks. He names Simile, Primitive Labs, Synthetic Users, Tenera, and Seldon, and asks how they've worked for people. No results are reported .
Craft: win/loss is not competitor research
A r/ProductMarketing thread argued that knowing a rival's pricing, features, and positioning doesn't tell you why a customer chose them . Advice from the thread:
- Run unbiased win/loss interviews, not run by sales, and do 10–20 before looking for patterns .
- Ask buyers what they expected to go wrong six months after signing. This tends to surface implementation risk, internal politics, and trust issues .
- Commenters disagreed on price. One said it's almost always the reason . Another said C-suite buyers often pick more expensive competitors for ROI reasons .
Teresa Torres made a related point about records. Her transcripts kept showing that her confident memories were wrong. Notes and transcripts each add interpretation, and a record can be used to collaborate or as a weapon .
Job market
A 50-year-old senior PM with 22 years in tech has applied to more than 200 roles in nearly a year and gotten few interviews . Another commenter missed one of six technical requirements and was passed over for a role that had been open eight months. They described a "buyer's market" in which managers hold out for a perfect, cheaper PM . A third said the market never recovered from its 2022 peak and hiring has shifted toward senior roles . These are personal accounts, not market data.
- AI has accelerated prototyping and hypothesis testing, but production still requires sound architecture, engineering expertise, and disciplined standards; shipping generated code without that discipline risks brittle systems and organizational chaos.
- For probabilistic AI features, use evaluations as a behavioral specification: define desired and unacceptable outcomes, rerun evaluations as models or features change, and ground outputs in business and semantic context. Choose LLMs carefully when answers need to be consistent and deterministic.
- Treat launch as the start of ongoing improvement: track adoption and repeat use alongside anonymized answer-quality and follow-up signals, and gather customer feedback. For white-label/OEM products, feature flags and customer-controlled rollout let different customers adopt at their own pace.
- The product leader advocates organizing around continuing product or track ownership, so teams retain customer and product context after launch. He expects faster execution to enable smaller teams while making the choice of meaningful customer problems more critical; his stated PM hiring priorities include technical understanding, curiosity, and empathy.
- Eyal argues that customers’ prior beliefs shape what they notice and expect, so branding and marketing can affect the product experience itself—not just recall—including how much customers enjoy a product.
- For behavior-change work, he recommends mental contrasting over outcome-only positive visualization: anticipate likely obstacles, plan what to do, and adopt a useful interpretation of discomfort, such as “this is what it feels like to get better.”
- For organizational change, he describes motivation as a combination of behavior, benefit, and belief; trust in a leader and confidence in one’s own ability affect effort and persistence. He cites Amazon’s “always day one” principle as a belief intended to sustain startup-like behavior and savings passed on to customers.
- Armadin describes a two-part product: Red’s agent swarm maps customer networks and maintains a metadata-based pulse for changes, then tests when the network or threat conditions change; Blue is intended to turn exploitability findings into rapid compensating controls through defenses such as EDR and firewalls. The founder said early Blue controls were expected in the following months, with the capability becoming core within a year.
- Armadin differentiates its approach from conventional penetration testing by attempting to verify whether risks are exploitable—including remote-code execution or data access—and by targeting logic flaws in custom applications. Its founder expects AI-enabled red teaming to eventually replace conventional penetration testing.
- For security agents, the company’s approach combines red-team expertise with AI specialists, monitors agent prompts and activity, and uses deterministic rules and classifiers to stop or escalate unfamiliar behavior to people—while avoiding guardrails so restrictive that they suppress useful model creativity.
- The founder says Armadin found more than 90 zero-day vulnerabilities in customer production environments since January 2026, including at Fortune 500 companies. He says humans found most while AI automated more than 90% of routine work, though the technology had begun finding zero-days itself.
- For fast-changing enterprise products, the founder recommends weekly sales training when the product changes every two weeks, with customer feedback flowing directly to engineers. He frames customer acquisition, satisfaction, and repeatability as the core differentiator.
- A 50-year-old Senior PM with 22 years across tech and product roles said they had been unemployed for almost a year after redundancy, applied to more than 200 roles, and received few interviews despite broadening their search and lowering salary expectations.
- Commenters describe PM hiring as favoring close domain and technical fit: one candidate said they were rejected for missing one of six technical requirements for a role open for eight months. Others argued that core PM skills transfer across industries and that PMs should learn users’ needs rather than arrive as expert users.
- AI’s effect on PM expectations is contested: one applicant said recruiters emphasized being able to ship and adjust features independently; another commenter argued AI rewards faster execution and domain expertise, while a counterview said stakeholder management and sorting through AI-created complexity remain valuable PM work.
- Jobseekers in the thread report that referrals and networking can outperform cold applications; commenters recommend targeting roles closely matching prior product/domain experience and considering fractional or contract work. One experienced PM also reported fewer management openings and more Principal/Lead IC roles with pay comparable to Head roles.
- Age bias is a recurring concern in the discussion, though commenters also report seeing PMs over 50 at larger companies, often with deep industry or company knowledge.
- One commenter describes dark mode and gamification as fading, text-heavy sites as increasingly common (speculating AI may be driving this), and generic chatbots as past their peak; they say effective sites remain small, clean, and focused on one use case. A reply says AI needs better management and that chat interfaces can be useful when they complete tasks rather than merely ask how they can help.
- Gamification is not a blanket dead end: a gamification PM says it works best in education and fitness, with niche uses such as savings goals, while generic leaderboards, levels, badges, and collections can become repetitive. Other commenters warn that gamification may increase dissatisfaction and churn, and that loyalty spending can be wasteful unless the target persona wants it.
- For perceived website quality, one commenter recommends consistent spacing and typographic rhythm over chasing style trends; another warns that carousels without visible swipe cues can be hard to discover.
- A contributor reports passwordless email/SMS OTP as a growing pattern and criticizes splitting email and password entry across screens. An email-first flow can route existing users to login and new users to signup, but a user with multiple email addresses says it creates concern about duplicate accounts and extra email searching. Security and flow preferences differ: one password-manager user prefers passwords over OTP (especially SMS), accepts email OTP, and dislikes emailed login links that interrupt checkout; another commenter favors passwordless in light of AI-enabled hacking and password reuse, while a reply suggests passkeys.
Gamma rebuilt its product as Gamma 5 after concluding that generic AI tools made presentations look too similar; the overhaul centers on greater visual variety so outputs can match a user’s brand or a new aesthetic. Gamma 5 extends this approach to presentations, docs, social assets, and graphics, and revamps its agent, design tools, editing, import, export, and connectors.
For teams using AI meeting transcripts, treat them as aids rather than definitive truth: Teresa says her confident recollections sometimes differed from her Granola transcripts, and cautions that notes and transcripts add interpretation, so verify a record before relying on it. Use transcripts for self-reflection rather than to hold colleagues rigidly to earlier views; the same record can support collaboration or become a weapon, and people should be allowed to evolve.
- One PM with 2.5 years of experience reports being laid off after their company shut down, receiving few callbacks, and having a signed offer revoked with only “internal discussions” given as the reason. A commenter describes the wider market as still below its 2022 peak, says AI has weakened the perceived need for generalist PMs, and says hiring has shifted toward senior roles; these are assessments, not market data. Another commenter suggests B2B platform roles face less competition than consumer PM roles.
- The discussion also disputes how AI affects PM generalism: one commenter argues AI can narrow specialists’ depth advantage without supplying generalists’ breadth, while another argues that breadth comes from experience in functions outside product rather than process expertise alone.
- Agent products do not have inherent network effects just because they are useful tools; product teams can assess potential effects separately across acquisition (lower CAC, more virality/signups), engagement (retention, depth, frequency), and monetization (ARPU, conversion, share of wallet), focusing on network density and interconnection rather than raw user scale.
- Agent-created documents, events, microsites, plans, and group chats could become shareable “viral objects” that bring new users in. These loops require access to contacts, context, and communication channels, but overly aggressive outreach risks annoying users and having agents filtered or blocked.
- Engagement network effects may arise when a shared agent network accumulates identity, trust, reputation, relationships, and private context that improve discovery, matching, and coordination as more people join. Those network effects could sit in open protocols and agent-facing marketplaces, leaving agents interchangeable, or be captured inside proprietary horizontal agents; the latter could make switching agents mean leaving a network behind, while an open ecosystem could allow vertical agents to thrive.
- In Vercel’s cited Next.js evaluation, making a skill available left the pass rate at 53% (the agent skipped it in 56% of cases); explicitly telling the agent when to use the skill raised the rate to 79%, while a compressed docs index reached 100%. The article cautions that one test does not establish how every skill should be designed.
- Evaluate AI skills by giving the same model the same job and evidence with and without the skill, defining success before the run, retaining failures, and repeating the test as models change; keep, shrink, or remove the skill based on whether it improves the work.
- Design a workflow around the job’s evidence and output needs, and keep evidence sources distinct: a CRM-recorded loss reason is not necessarily the buyer’s reason, which remains unknown if the buyer was never asked.
Lenny Rachitsky flags AI simulations as a trend to watch: teams are using them to quickly test product ideas and changes to product flows. He names Simile AI, Primitive Labs AI, Synthetic Users, Tenera, and Seldon as examples; the post does not report results from using them.
- Andrew Chen argues agents do not inherently have network effects: assess whether greater network density improves acquisition, engagement, or monetization—not merely whether the product gains users. Interoperable agents may remain interchangeable tools, like email clients.
- Agent-driven growth loops could turn generated documents, events, websites, research, and plans into shareable artifacts that bring new users in. These loops depend on access to contacts and communication channels, relevant context for choosing whom to involve, and outreach that earns trust rather than feeling spammy.
- Shared identity, trust, reputation, and private context can make a common agent network more useful for discovery and matching, but those network effects could instead live in open protocols or specialized services accessible to multiple agents. The strategic boundary is whether horizontal agents internalize artifacts, transactions, and introductions—or leave networks interoperable; that choice affects whether vertical agents can thrive and whether switching means losing a network.
An AI-assisted competitive-monitoring workflow compares Claude without and with competitive-analysis skills: the post says the unskilled run treated an old source as recent and a guess as fact, while the skills-equipped run dated claims, marked its ranking as a viewpoint, and disclosed what it could not see . It suggests installing LMTYdotcom/skills and asking Claude which recent competitor changes deserve attention; the author invites readers to test the workflow .
Kevin Weil praised an OpenAI release in AI and mathematics, while noting that achieving models of comparable caliber in the physical sciences remains unfinished work; he expressed confidence that progress will come.
After months of daily use of Hermes/OpenClaw, Andrew Chen says Town, Muse, and Grokbot are fun to try, but he is not switching because he enjoys tinkering—likening it to administering his own Linux box rather than using iOS . The anecdote suggests that hands-on tinkering can itself be product value for some users, not just a hurdle to convenience .
@thsottiaux, Head of ChatGPT & Codex, says AI-era skills trending up are great taste, passion for building something that matters, and knowing what good looks like; typing fast is trending down.
- One PM with more than 10 years’ experience argues that expectations vary sharply by company, with some roles expanding toward end-to-end work across ideation, design, testing, and implementation. In their view, weak PM management and unclear definitions of “done” can fuel second-guessing, while AI-enabled customers and stakeholders make it harder for PMs to keep up with every change.
- Their suggested response is to use LLMs and agents to digest incoming information and automate recurring work—such as Jira/spec workflows, async Slack updates, and task prioritization—accepting some loss of detail for sustainability. They also recommend grounding decisions in customer and user exposure, keeping up with the market through a manageable reading or podcast routine, and building cross-functional relationships.
- Another commenter frames product and feature releases as iterative learning, and recommends consulting customers and coworkers to identify what to build and where to improve.
For repeated AI-assisted work, a skill that teaches the task is not enough: the AI also needs company and market context, plus updates since the previous run, so later runs build on earlier work instead of starting over .
For AI-assisted competitor monitoring, a described skill dates each reported change, separates facts from judgment, makes missing evidence visible, and stops when the next question is a different job; the post identifies answer currency as the hard part of asking AI what changed among competitors.
- Commenters describe a crowded PM job market despite many listings: one says even experienced, industry-specific PMs struggle to land interviews, while another says experienced candidates are taking junior roles to get reemployed. Another commenter says hiring checklists can combine deep industry knowledge, architecture-level engineering, project management, and AI, and reports seeing more contract roles.
- For someone moving into PM, a commenter recommends pursuing an internal transfer rather than switching externally in the current market; they suggest learning fundamentals in the current role, where AI may help.
DO AGENTS HAVE NETWORK EFFECTS?
We are seeing a new wave of general purpose consumer-friendly agents, and it’s causing many thousands of AI startups to re-evaluate their place in the market. Will these new horizontal players take over completely? Will it be winner take all? Can products that focus vertical use cases survive? The new wave of products - Muse, Town, Instinct, Grokbot, etc - come from taking the power and magic of Openclaw/Hermes but wrapping it in polished, secure, consumer-friendly experience. This is only the beginning, and soon every major tech company will throw their hat in the ring and thousands of startups that have been working on vertical agents in X (travel, shopping, family, work, SMB, etc etc) have big existential questions to answer.
The simple case against winner-take-all dynamics: These agents are tools, not networks. They inherently provide a solo experience, and although packaged as chat experiences, they don’t have network effects the way that Whatsapp or phone networks do. They’re more like email clients - I can use Superhuman and someone else uses Outlook and someone else is on Gmail, but in the end we just send email to each other. In that metaphoi, if a Muse agent encounters a Instinct agent, they will just figure out how to talk to each other by building APIs, or using email/messaging/etc., so that there’s no advantage to everyone running the same thing. Further, you can swap out the underlying LLM - as we saw in the Claude vs Clawdbot saga - things will still work. The memory and underlying context are just text files, and AI are great at porting things from one system to another. So where’s the moat?
Just because they are tools today doesn’t mean they can’t evolve into networks. As I’ve written about in the past, instead of discussing “network effects” as a vague/amorphous concept, let’s instead overlay it against core KPIs each product has to build against:
- Acquisition network effects: More users** = lower CAC, higher virality, more signups
- Engagement effects: More users = higher retention, deeper usage, more frequency
- Monetization effects: More users = higher ARPU, higher conversion, more share of wallet (**PS. and by “more users” of course I actually mean, of course, higher network density with more interconnection within/across networks. Not scale effects)
So looking at these sub-categories of network effects, you might ask: What are the features that you’d build to actually create network effects in agents? How does this category become winner-take-all?
Acquisition: In the pre-AI world, network effects in customer acquisition were driven by users taking actions that then bring in even more users - whether that’s sending an invite, sharing a piece of content, or getting mentioned in a comment. Those users would then join the network, repeat the same actions, creating more viral loops that would throw off more users. In the post-AI world, both users and agents can initiate these loops. An agent might suggest, “hey, do you want me to help organize a New Years celebration with family” and then might pull together a group chat with your siblings, in-laws, and parents. It might build a microsite for the event and ask people to sign up and RSVP, creating an opportunity to generate a signup. Or for work, you might finish a slide deck and your agent asks if you want to pull together a meeting to present it to your team. When it does that, it might create a prep doc, take notes, and host it all on a microsite that engaged others.
These types of agentic viral loops need a few things to work: They need to be able to plug into your contacts, and to have enough context to know when to loop which people into which projects/events/activities. They need access to communication channels like email/messaging/otherwise, specifically where they can reach potential users, as this serves as the viral substrate for propagation. The magic will be how to get all of these things without being creepy, and to create enough trust to reach out to friends/colleagues/etc on your behalf, without being too push. No one wants an agent that says, “hey Andrew would like to get lunch next week” followed by “and sign up for this agent to agree!” - it has to be better and more subtle than that.
Many viral loops in the pre-AI era, particularly in the workplace, were built on a content creation loop - you use Google Slides to make a thing, you share a link, and then people would view it. Eventually they might make their own. Many products like Figma, spreadsheets, Notion, Canvas, are all built on this loop, and so are YouTube, Instagram, etc. In the agentic world, you might start by talking to your agent about interior decoration ideas, and it might ultimately build you a Pinterest-like board and make it easily shareable with others. It might build you a spreadsheet mini-app with a budget, a schedule, etc., and again, make it easily shareable. It might volunteer to do this inside a group chat with your friends, and if they want to view it, they should sign up and get their own agent too.
If the content creation loop works for agentic virality, I think it means there’s a big incentive for every agent to volunteer to make visually-appealing, shareable content, do this often. AI is so good at codegen that creating a one-off disposable artifact will probably be more useful than not. And there’s a big incentive to drive virality by building/owning the content yourself as the agent. In the interior decoration example, it would be more viral to create a standalone version hosted by the agent, rather than building an actual Pinterest board, or to build a self-contained mini-spreadsheet rather than creating a GSheet. A properly tuned agentic viral loop will do the former because it helps spread the agent, rather than helping spread Pinterest/GSheets.
This might all sound like horrific spamminess to you, but I think it might be done tastefully. If an agent is high-retention and high-usage, you’ll have many shots on goal to gradually invite your friends onto the same platform as you. The first shot might come from an invite loop that says your colleague/friend wants to set up a place to share photos/coordinate calendars/etc., and even if you say no, over time, your friend might share very useful microsites for projects or events or research that’s relevant, and you might decide that you want to sign up to leave a comment, but then eventually you might try the other functionality as well.
Engagement: It’s easy to imagine that in a world where everyone by default has super intelligent agents that product engagement in agents would go up. The simple argument is that the ubiquity of agents would lead to more successful task completion, making agents more useful and applicable to more problems. Routine tasks like scheduling something or summarizing/sharing notes from a meeting, would happen instantly if it ran through agents and you removed humans completely. As agents become more successful over time, not only with your own tasks but in coordinating larger and more complex multi-user decisions, you’d end up using them more.
However, this does not answer the question of network effects. The question there is, does your agent get better when other people are all using the SAME agent? As I said earlier, the argument for NO is if each type of agent runs on a frontier AI model, can talk to other agents (all different types) in real-time via email/messaging/APIs/connectors/etc. Then there’s not much leverage. If you’re just organizing a meeting or a dinner party or meeting the agents just ask each other in real-time - and even if they are heterogeneous - they can use email and calendars and figure it out.
But some tasks do benefit from everyone running the same agent, because you get the benefits of centralization: Trust, speed, identity, discovery, etc. Some examples:
- “Who are 10 people in San Francisco that I should meet?” - agents can’t just ask each other to find an optimal solution
- “Find me a VP of Engineering who isn’t publicly looking for a new job, but would leave for a fast-growing startup that pays X in stock” - there’s a mix of private and public info here, and an agent of a passive jobseeker might lie if the asking agent is not trustworthy
- “Who’s a trustworthy seller of X that I should buy from?” - reputation might be gamed, and it might be better to have a global source of truth
- “Help me pick out the best dinner in the next 5 minutes that my friends and all their +1s would like, incorporating allergies/schedules/locations” - real-time solution incorporating a bunch of shared context
- … and even more so, if you imagine that there may be agents that lie, exaggerate, or otherwise to benefit their humans
For the above examples, you could imagine Muse/Town/Instinct/whatever building a shared network+context layer that understands the network, its relation to public/private data, acts as a system of record for identity/trust, does multi-sided marketplace matching, etc. Then it would allow only its agents access to this platform, and agents outside of the network wouldn’t have access. If you’re part of this network, and are contributing data, your agent gets more useful over time. The network gets more powerful over time.
The counterpoint to this counterpoint is that perhaps new startups will fill the void as a series of agent-facing point solutions, making it possible for people running agents of all times to interface with each other. Perhaps Muse creates a proprietary ecommerce marketplace that only Muse agents can use, but perhaps there will just be a next-gen eBay for any agent to sell to any other agent, and this service maintains central reputation/identity at that layer. In other words, perhaps the centralization will still happen, but just at a layer above agents. Most likely both will happen - every large tech company adds chat, commerce, search, etc, but also there are pure play versions of each of these. But this feels like more fragmentation than a true winner-take-all.
Some parting thoughts: My argument in this writeup is simple: Agents don’t inherently have network effects. If all we build are super-intelligent assistants that can use tools and talk to each other, then the category might look surprisingly fragmented. Your agent can talk to my agent, just as Gmail can send email to Outlook, and there’s no particular reason we need to use the same one. Better models, UX, integrations, memory, and distribution might create very large companies, but those are not network effects.
But the next gen of agents have a big opportunity design network effects in their interactions. On acquisition, they can turn the things they create—documents, events, websites, research, group chats, plans—into viral objects that naturally pull other people in. And on engagement, they can create shared networks of identity, reputation, relationships, private context, and intent that make the agent increasingly useful as more of the people around you join.
There’s many ways for these network effects to instantiate. If we’re lucky, things will look more like the open web - mostly decentralized, with bits of centralization to make certain tasks smoother. Identity could become an open protocol. Reputation could live in marketplaces. Commerce could happen through an agent-native eBay. Professional discovery could happen through an agent-native LinkedIn. Agents could remain interchangeable clients sitting on top of a constellation of networks and marketplaces, much as browsers and email clients do today. In that world, enormous network effects emerge around agents without producing a winner-take-all market for the agents themselves.
My guess is that we’ll see a fight over exactly this boundary. Every major horizontal agent will try to pull valuable network functionality inside its walls: host the artifact instead of creating a Google Doc, execute the transaction instead of sending you to Amazon, make the introduction instead of searching LinkedIn, create the event instead of using Partiful. Every time it does this successfully, it converts somebody else’s network effect into its own. Meanwhile, every incumbent network and a new generation of startups will have the opposite incentive: make their networks universally accessible to every agent so that no horizontal agent can recreate and capture them.
This is why I don’t think the interesting question is simply, “Will agents have network effects?” Of course some will. The much more consequential question is: Where will the network effects live? If they live primarily in open protocols and specialized networks, we may end up with thousands of agents competing on intelligence, personality, UX, specialization, and price, all interoperating with the same underlying ecosystem. Vertical agents can thrive in this world. But if a few horizontal agents successfully accumulate identity, relationships, private context, reputation, latent intent, and distribution - and keep those assets proprietary - then switching agents starts to mean leaving your network behind. Next couple years will be very fun to see how this plays out.
- Andrew Chen argues agents do not inherently have network effects: assess whether greater network density improves acquisition, engagement, or monetization—not merely whether the product gains users. Interoperable agents may remain interchangeable tools, like email clients.
- Agent-driven growth loops could turn generated documents, events, websites, research, and plans into shareable artifacts that bring new users in. These loops depend on access to contacts and communication channels, relevant context for choosing whom to involve, and outreach that earns trust rather than feeling spammy.
- Shared identity, trust, reputation, and private context can make a common agent network more useful for discovery and matching, but those network effects could instead live in open protocols or specialized services accessible to multiple agents. The strategic boundary is whether horizontal agents internalize artifacts, transactions, and introductions—or leave networks interoperable; that choice affects whether vertical agents can thrive and whether switching means losing a network.