The agent was Claude Code, Anthropic's coding agent, and the people using it were professional data analysts advising an invented farming cooperative. The work held four judgment calls with two sound answers each. A hidden coin flip decided which answer each agent preferred, and years of experience gave the analysts no protection against its influence.
The influence was strongest where it mattered most. When an analyst had stated a view and the agent disagreed, the analyst dropped that view 60% of the time. Most later explained their choices with the agent's arguments and called the result their own.
An agent that does the whole analysis makes these choices along the way and gives a sensible reason for each, so they arrive as finished work, not as questions. A reviewer checks finished work for mistakes, and neither answer is a mistake.
For example, a finance director asks an agent whether to close a regional warehouse. The agent must decide whether the month of a strike counts as a normal month, and whether shared costs are split by volume or by revenue. Either choice can be defended, and either can decide the answer. The report she receives shows one choice, with a good reason beside it.
If five teams use the same agent, five reports that agree may be one preference counted five times. Before the agent starts, ask it to list the judgment calls the work needs and to argue the case for each answer, then make those calls yourself.