Agentic Analytics: AI Agents that Work 24/7

Traditional BI dashboards are passive. They wait for someone to open them, filter views, and figure out what changed. Agentic analytics uses AI agents that work continuously: they monitor hundreds of metrics without human intervention, detect meaningful shifts, automatically drill into the data to understand why, and deliver explanations to the right stakeholders before the next meeting.

‍

The technical difference is goal-oriented autonomy. Agents operate with objectives like “keep brand X NBRx within expected range” or “flag any payer with denial rate increase over 15%.” They pursue those goals 24/7 through sensing, analysis, decision-making, and action. Dashboards don’t do that—they only display what you manually request.

AI agents automate routine analytics by using intelligent systems to handle repetitive processes like variance analysis, weekly brand performance reports, territory comparisons, and payer access monitoring that currently consume 60-70% of analyst time. These agents learn patterns over time, improving efficiency by detecting which metrics matter most, which investigation paths typically yield insights, and which stakeholders need which types of alerts, reducing manual report production from 40 hours per week to maybe 10-15 hours.

Instead of analysts rebuilding the same TRx decomposition analysis every Monday, the agent runs it automatically overnight, identifies the key drivers, and has a narrative ready when teams arrive, freeing analysts to focus on strategic questions that require creativity and business judgment rather than repetitive data pulling.

An agent monitoring weekly NBRx by payer detects that starts from a major regional health plan dropped 18%, automatically triggers root cause analysis by checking prior authorization volumes, queries payer policy data and identifies that the plan added new step therapy requirements on a specific date, quantifies business impact by modeling expected vs actual NBRx over 90 days, and generates a narrative summarizing the change with specific next actions tagged to the right stakeholders within 48 hours of the anomaly.

‍

Tellius automates this exact workflow where once you configure the NBRx monitoring parameters, the system executes all these investigation steps without human intervention and delivers the final brief automatically, compared to 2-3 weeks in a manual process where someone first notices the dip, requests a deep dive, waits for analyst bandwidth, and schedules cross-functional meetings to decide what to do.

It means scheduled or event-driven execution of monitoring workflows that run without human initiation, where an agentic platform continuously executes background jobs every few hours checking 200+ predefined metrics against historical baselines and expected ranges. When a metric moves outside its normal band, the system triggers investigation workflows that decompose the metric by dimensions, correlate with known events like formulary changes, rank potential drivers by significance, and assemble summaries.

‍

Tellius implements this through two workflow types:

• Automated workflows where Tellius Kaiya (the conversational AI) auto-plans the multi-step, multi-join analysis and executes it step-by-step without any pre-configuration.
• User-defined workflows where you can tell Kaiya in natural language what analysis steps you need and it executes based on your instructions and trigger prompts.

‍

The "24/7" aspect is that these workflows happen whether you're in meetings, on vacation, or asleep, with no human looking at dashboards and deciding what to investigate, because the agent has predefined objectives and logic that execute continuously and only escalate to humans when finding something meaningful or when confidence falls below thresholds requiring judgment.

Traditional BI alerts trigger when a single metric crosses a manually-set threshold like "email me if TRx falls below 10,000" without investigating why, adjusting for seasonality, or distinguishing meaningful changes from noise. This is why IT teams handle 4,484 alerts daily with 67% ignored due to false positives.

‍

Agentic analytics uses contextual anomaly detection that learns normal patterns including weekly cycles, seasonal effects, and correlations with other metrics, only alerting when something is statistically unusual given full context. Agents don't stop at detection but automatically drill into which segments drive the change, test potential explanations, and rank likely causes before sending anything. The output transforms from "TRx is down 8%, go look at a dashboard" to "TRx declined 8% driven by 23% Mid-Atlantic drop coinciding with prior auth denial increases from two major payers in that geography, unrelated to field activity which remained stable, recommended action: escalate to payer team to investigate policy changes."

Agents detect and explain changes, risks, and opportunities across core commercial metrics. For example, they can show:

• Which payers are tightening access compared to 60+ days ago, with projected TRx impact by plan.
  
• Whether high-value HCP segments are slowing their prescribing velocity, and how that correlates with competitor activity or field coverage gaps.
  
• If recent formulary wins actually translated into NBRx growth or if pull-through is still below expectations.
  
• Which territories underperform relative to opportunity, and whether the drag comes from access barriers, execution gaps, or data-quality issues.
  
• Whether patient drop-off rates are increasing at specific journey steps, such as benefits verification or prior authorization.
  
• If the current quarter is tracking off budget across regions, with segment-level explanations of where and why performance is off-plan.
  
  

The agent constantly monitors for deviations from expected performance, investigates root causes when it finds them, and packages the results into decision-ready summaries, without waiting for someone to notice problems in a weekly review.

Yes, but their role shifts from spending 60-70% of time on repetitive production work (pulling data, building variance reports, creating monthly decks, answering one-off questions) to focusing on higher-value work like designing new metrics, building causal models, validating agent findings, and solving complex strategic questions. This requires business context, creativity, and cross-functional negotiation.

‍

A good rule is that if you've asked the same analytical question three or more times, it should become an automated agent workflow. While questions you've never asked before requiring synthesis with qualitative field inputs or competitive intelligence still need human analysts. Data scientists also tune agents by setting confidence thresholds, validating anomaly detection models, reviewing false positive and negative rates, and encoding business logic so agents make decisions aligned with how the organization actually operates.

Anomaly detection in pharma accounts for weekly cycles, holiday volume dips, and specialty-specific seasonal behaviors using time-series models that learn these patterns from historical data, so a system knows a 12% TRx drop during Thanksgiving week is normal but the same drop in mid-March probably isn't.

‍

The technical approach combines statistical models like ARIMA or exponential smoothing that forecast what metrics should be, machine learning models detecting subtler patterns by considering metric interactions, and incorporation of known events like formulary changes or territory realignments so expected changes aren't treated as anomalies.

‍

The output is confidence scores where if TRx drops 6% when the model expected 5%, that's probably noise, but if TRx drops 15% when the model expected 2% increase, that's high-confidence anomaly triggering investigation, with configurable thresholds aiming for low false positive rates because alert fatigue destroys trust faster than missing a few true anomalies.

Alert fatigue is what happens when monitoring systems generate so many notifications that people stop paying attention. In many setups, 67% of alerts get ignored because they’re mostly noise, and 90% of security operations teams report being overwhelmed by false-positive backlogs.

‍

Agentic systems reduce alert fatigue by changing how alerts are created and delivered:

• Contextual anomaly detection (not static thresholds): alerts fire only when something is statistically unusual given full history and patterns.
  
• Impact filtering: only escalate issues that materially affect business outcomes. A 15% swing in a tiny segment might be real but financially irrelevant, so the agent logs it without interrupting anyone.
  
• Narrative consolidation: related signals get combined into a single brief, instead of separate alerts for every correlated metric.

‍

The outcome is fewer, higher-quality alerts: shifting from ~50 alerts a week to 3-5 investigated briefs that explain what changed, why it likely changed, and what actions to consider.

Yes, good agentic systems are designed to do this, because pharma data often contains false signals from reporting lags, incomplete pharmacy coverage, territory mapping errors, and vendor restatements. To avoid misclassifying noise as business movement, they run data quality checks as part of the monitoring workflow before concluding a real change occurred.

‍

Example: if NBRx drops 20% in a territory, the agent should verify:

• Is Rx data still flowing from the usual pharmacy sources, or are feeds missing/late?
• Were there territory alignment changes that reassigned accounts and made it look like volume moved?
• Did the data vendor issue restatements that changed historical values?

‍

If those checks fail, the system flags a data issue (not a business issue) and routes it to data operations instead of escalating to the brand manager. Technically, this requires bringing data lineage and quality metadata into the analytics layer so agents can reference freshness timestamps, row counts by source, join match rates and historical restatement patterns.

‍

When confidence in the data is low, the agent either holds the alert until data stabilizes or explicitly notes quality concerns in the narrative.

It’s a tradeoff between coverage and noise. Monitoring 10,000 HCPs one-by-one creates a flood of mostly meaningless signals, but watching only national totals hides localized problems until they’re huge.

‍

The practical approach is hierarchical monitoring. This keeps alerts manageable while still catching local issues early.

• Agents watch high-level aggregates continuously and only drill into finer segments when something looks off.
  
• Example flow: monitor national NBRx → region → territory → HCP decile. If overall metrics are stable, nothing escalates. If national NBRx drops 8%, the agent decomposes to find the driving region, then the specific territories, then the HCP segments causing it.

Yes, and it’s one of the most underused applications. Most monitoring is built to catch negatives (TRx drops, denials rise, quota misses), but agents can also flag positive anomalies, such as:

• regions where NBRx accelerates faster than expected,
• HCP segments showing unusual uptake,
• payers with better pull-through than historical norms.

‍

The value is spotting what’s working so you can amplify it. If one territory grows 30% while similar territories stay flat, the agent can investigate why and you can scale that insight before the window closes.

‍

Technically, it’s the same anomaly detection logic, just applied to upside deviations, not only downside risk. Platforms like Tellius can be configured to flag both and generate narratives that clearly separate: “here’s a problem to fix” vs “here’s a success to replicate.”

This is where graduated autonomy and human-in-the-loop design matter. If an agent detects an anomaly but root-cause analysis produces multiple plausible explanations without clear statistical evidence, it should escalate to a human instead of guessing.

‍

Example: an agent sees a 10% TRx drop, but field activity, payer policy shifts, and competitive dynamics all look normal. Since it can’t confidently attribute the drop to one cause, it should:

• generate a diagnostic report summarizing what it checked,
• explicitly flag the ambiguity,
• and suggest next steps (verify data quality, ask field teams for qualitative context, or wait another week to see if the pattern persists).

A multi-agent architecture breaks a complex analytics workflow into specialized agents that each handle one part, then coordinate to produce a complete answer. Instead of one monolithic system doing everything, you get an agent team with defined roles, such as:

• data retrieval agent
• anomaly detection agent
• root cause analysis agent
• visualization agent
• narrative generation agent

‍

Pharma commercial analytics is inherently complex. Multi-agent setups can parallelize work. If the payer-data agent hits a delay, the rest of the workflow can still run using available data, while clearly flagging what’s missing instead of breaking silently.

‍

The technical advantage is modularity: you can improve or swap one agent without rebuilding the entire system, making the system easier to maintain and extend as new requirements appear.

Validation usually happens in layers, so weak inputs or shaky conclusions don’t get pushed to stakeholders.

• Data validation (before analysis runs)

‍

Check inputs meet quality standards: row counts, missing values in key fields, freshness timestamps, and join match rates. If data quality is poor, the agent doesn’t proceed.

• Statistical validation (is it real or noise?)

‍

Test whether an anomaly is significant by using confidence intervals, comparing the change to historical volatility, and running multiple detection methods. If three models flag the same anomaly, confidence is high. If only one flags it, confidence is low.

• Business logic validation (does the explanation make sense?)

‍

Check for logical contradictions. A validation agent reviews the logic chain and flags issues before narratives are generated.

‍

Platforms like Tellius implement these as separate agents in the workflow so conclusions pass multiple checks before reaching humans, and validation results are logged so users can inspect what was tested and how the conclusion was reached.

A robust system uses specialized agents working together. Tellius agentic analytics architecture follows this multi-agent approach, typically including:

• Planning agent: Receives a query or monitoring trigger, breaks it into sub-tasks, decides sequence/dependencies, and coordinates other agents.
  
• Data prep agent: Pulls data from source systems, performs joins, handles missing data, and stages data for analysis.
  
• Analysis agent: Decomposes metrics by dimensions (region, payer, specialty), tests correlations with known events, and ranks likely drivers. Applies statistical and machine learning models to detect unusual metric patterns.
  
• Validation agent: Checks data quality, statistical significance, and logical consistency before escalating findings.
  
• Visualization agent: Generates supporting charts/graphs and selects the right chart types for the data.
  
• Summarization agent: Produces plain-language summaries explaining impact and suggesting next actions.
  
• Optional action agent: Executes pre-approved actions like updating forecasts, triggering field alerts, or creating CRM tasks.

‍

This division of labor lets each agent be optimized for its task and makes the system easier to test and maintain. Tellius orchestrates these agents in both modes: automated workflows (Kaiya plans and runs everything) and user-defined workflows (you specify the steps in natural language).

Agents use a semantic layer and agent instructions. The semantic layer is governed business metadata that defines pharma metrics, hierarchies, and relationships, for example: NBRx excludes refills and samples. This ensures consistency. It also improves maintainability: if the business changes how it defines NBRx or adherence, you update the semantic layer once instead of rewriting agent code everywhere.

‍

Adherence calculation example: When an agent calculates adherence, it calls the semantic definition, such as: Adherence = (days covered by prescription fills / days in measurement period) × 100

‍

Patient journey categorization example: The semantic layer defines journey stages like: prescription written → benefits verified → PA submitted → approved → first fill → second fill → abandonment. It also defines which data fields signal each transition.

It depends on the confidence level and the risk profile of the action. Low-risk, high-confidence actions can be automated, such as:

• updating forecast models when actuals arrive,
• flagging accounts in CRM for rep follow-up,
• generating and sending routine performance summaries to field teams,
• triggering data quality alerts to the analytics team,
• logging issues in ticketing systems.

‍

High-risk or ambiguous actions should require human approval, such as:

• changing quota assignments,
• adjusting IC payout calculations,
• recommending budget reallocations,
• suggesting payer contract terms.

‍

Tellius supports both modes:

• Automated workflows: the system decides and executes actions based on business rules and confidence thresholds.
  
• User-defined workflows: you describe the step-by-step actions and triggers in natural language to Kaiya, which builds and runs the workflow accordingly.

‍

The implementation uses graduated autonomy with explicit approval gates: some actions auto-run if confidence is high enough, while others require a manager to click “Approve”.

Integration typically happens at two layers: the data layer and the action layer.

1) Data layer (how it reads your data)

• Connects to sources using standard methods (SQL, APIs etc.)
  
• The key is the platform sits on top of your existing infrastructure, not replacing it. Your warehouse/lakehouse remains the system of record.
  
• The platform queries that data, may cache common aggregations for performance, and stores its own metadata (agent configs, validation logs, alert history) in a separate schema, so deployment usually doesn’t require migrating data or rebuilding pipelines.

‍

2) Action layer (how it pushes outcomes into workflows)

Can write back via APIs to operational tools. Write-back is configured per use case. Many agents are read-only and just generate insights, so not every agent needs write access.

‍

Architecturally, Tellius follows this pattern: it sits as a semantic + intelligence layer over your existing warehouse/lakehouse, federates queries, applies analytics/AI models, and delivers outputs via conversational Q&A, scheduled reports, and proactive alerts.

Compliance is enforced through policy layers and audit trails built into the agent architecture.

1. Design-time boundaries (what agents cannot access or do)

If you define hard boundary conditions, the system enforces this with role-based access controls at the data level, so the boundary isn’t optional.

‍

2. Rule-based constraints during decision-making

Agents use decision trees and rule engines that encode regulatory and internal policy constraints. For example, if a workflow touches patient-level data, the agent ensures outputs are aggregated and de-identified before sharing. These rules are explicit, version-controlled, and auditable.

‍

3. Full auditability and lineage

Every agent action is logged with timestamps, inputs, logic applied, confidence scores, and outputs. This is critical in pharma because areas like adverse event reporting, off-label discussions, and HCP interactions are tightly regulated.

‍

4. Human oversight for ambiguous cases

If an agent can’t determine whether something crosses a policy boundary, it should escalate to compliance rather than guessing. Over time, the system can learn from escalations and refine its rules, while keeping the guardrails in place.

Agent errors usually show up as false positives (flagging noise as meaningful) or false negatives (missing real issues). Both hurt trust, but false positives are often more corrosive because they waste stakeholder time immediately.

To reduce errors and limit impact:

• Use conservative confidence thresholds so agents only escalate findings they’re statistically confident in.
  
• Run validation loops to catch logical inconsistencies before insights are shared.
  
• Capture human feedback (users flag wrong conclusions) and log it to retrain models or adjust business rules.
  
  

When an error happens, the response should match the severity:

• Minor false alarm: user dismisses it; the system logs it as a false positive to improve future precision.
  
• Materially wrong explanation that influenced a decision: triggers a formal review where data science audits the logic, finds the failure point, and retrains the model or adds validation rules to prevent recurrence.
  
  

Users should always be able to see how the agent reached a conclusion: what data and methods it used, and the confidence level. Platforms like Tellius surface this via explainability interfaces where you can drill from the narrative summary down to the underlying analysis and data.

ROI usually comes from three buckets: time savings, decision speed, and business impact.

1) Time savings (easiest to quantify)

Start with hours spent on repetitive work: variance reports, weekly brand reviews, ad hoc deep dives. If your team spends 40 hours/week and agentic workflows automate 60%, you free 24 hours/week. At $100/hour fully loaded, that’s roughly $125K/year in analyst capacity redirected to higher-value work.

‍

2) Decision speed (harder, often more valuable)

Measure how much faster you surface issues and respond. If monitoring flags a payer access issue on day 3 instead of week 4, you gain ~25 days of response time. For a $500M brand, even 1–2% revenue protection from faster resolution can be $5–10M.

‍

3) Business impact (hardest, most meaningful)

The real question: did agentic insights drive actions that measurably improved outcomes?
Examples: TRx lift, reduced abandonment, better field allocation. You need a tracking loop: which insights were acted on → what actions were taken → what outcomes followed.

‍

Industry benchmarks suggest marketing analytics automation can save about $135K/year on manual reporting with ~12x ROI within one year. Orgs that move into predictive/prescriptive analytics (which agentic systems enable) often see ~29–35% ROI, versus ~12–18% for descriptive-only analytics.

The biggest failures aren’t technical. They’re adoption failures driven by trust, noise, and workflow mismatch.

1) Trust erosion

This happens when agents make confident but wrong claims and users act on them. Example: a brand team reallocates budget based on an agent’s recommendation, then discovers the data was stale or the root-cause analysis was wrong. Once it happens, users stop trusting future recommendations. That’s why validation loops and explainability are critical.

‍

2) Alert fatigue

Deployments fail when alerting is tuned too aggressively and users get flooded with meaningless notifications. They start ignoring alerts or unsubscribe entirely. The fix is to start with conservative thresholds, monitor a small set of high-priority metrics, and expand slowly based on feedback.

‍

3) Misalignment with real workflows

Agents can generate “good” analysis that still isn’t useful because it doesn’t match how decisions are made. Example: the agent produces payer-level insights, but the brand team makes decisions at a regional level—so the output isn’t actionable. Successful deployments involve tight collaboration with end users so outputs match the right granularity, frequency, and format for business rhythms.

‍

It’s usually the trust gap. People either don’t adopt the agent, or they quietly stop using it because they don’t know when it’ll be wrong.

You don’t need a giant ML team, but you do need a small, capable core: moderate data engineering plus strong pharma business definitions. Effort is similar to a BI rollout, but with additional work to encode business logic and validation rules.

‍

What deployment typically needs

• A data engineer to connect data sources and pipelines.
• A data analyst who knows your metric definitions and hierarchies; 
• A data scientist to tune anomaly detection and monitoring thresholds.
• Mapping products/payers/HCPs/territories into a semantic layer, defining metrics + monitoring rules, and configuring initial agent workflows.
• A realistic initial timeline is ~2–3 months with that 3-person mix.

‍

What maintenance typically needs

• A data scientist to monitor agent performance (false positives/negatives), retrain as conditions change, and add workflows as new use cases appear.
  
• An analytics lead to review outputs, collect user feedback, and keep alerts aligned with business priorities.
  
• Ongoing commitment is usually ~20–30% of one data scientist and ~10–20% of one analytics manager, depending on how many agents you run and how complex your commercial ops are.

Agentic analytics won’t magically fix bad data, but it can make data quality problems more visible and easier to manage.

‍

If your Rx data has lags or missing pharmacies, agents can run data validation checks up front and flag gaps before analysis starts. That’s better than today’s pattern where analysts find the issue halfway through a report and have to redo the work. Agents still need a minimum baseline:

• If a key source (e.g., PA volumes, call activity, payer-level data) is missing or unreliable, agents that depend on it will either return low-confidence outputs or fail validation and escalate to humans.
  
• You can’t expect agents to explain what’s happening in a payer segment if you don’t have payer-level data.

‍

The practical rollout is phased:

• Start with the sources you trust (often Rx trends + field activity).
• Defer workflows that require cleaner data (like payer access) until formulary/denial data improves.
• As data quality improves, you unlock more sophisticated workflows.

‍

Some platforms add data quality agents that monitor freshness, completeness, and consistency, then alert data engineering when issues appear. This creates a feedback loop: better data enables better analytics, and better analytics tells you exactly where to invest in improving data quality.

This matters because agents learn from history. If your historical data reflects biased practices, like underinvesting in certain geographies, under-targeting certain HCP demographics, or applying inconsistent IC rules—agents will repeat those patterns unless you design against it.

‍

Bias mitigation has three layers:

1) Data and training safeguards

• Before training anomaly detection or forecasting models, audit historical data for systematic imbalances.
  Example checks: are some territories consistently under-resourced vs potential, or are certain specialties excluded from targeting despite similar prescribing volume?
  
• If you find bias patterns, either correct the data or add bias constraints so models don’t learn “bad history” as “best practice.”
  
  

2) Decision rules baked into workflows

Encode fairness rules explicitly so optimization can’t override them. For field allocation, don’t let any territory fall below a minimum coverage threshold even if the algorithm suggests it. For HCP scoring: enforce that scoring criteria are applied uniformly across demographic groups and practice types. This prevents agents from “optimizing” into unfair outcomes.

3) Ongoing monitoring and bias audits

• Continuously track agent recommendations by segment (territory, HCP type, payer) and look for patterns where certain groups are repeatedly deprioritized or flagged negatively.
  
• When patterns appear, investigate whether it’s real business signal or historical bias.
  
• This is often called fairness testing or bias audits, and it’s becoming standard in regulated industries because it reduces discriminatory patterns and improves alignment with stated company values.

When you evaluate agentic analytics vendors for pharma, don’t accept generic “works in any industry” claims. Push for pharma-specific depth, agent validation, governance, and real deployment proof, with concrete examples.

‍

1) Pharma-specific fit

• Do you support NBRx, TRx, PDC, adherence, pull-through out of the box?
• Can you natively integrate Rx/claims, CRM, payer formularies, hub services, specialty pharmacy data?
• Do you handle pharma hierarchies like payer parent/child, HCP deciles, and territory structures?

‍

2) Agent architecture + validation

• What checks run automatically before the system alerts us?
• Can we see the full logic chain: data used → methods applied → confidence score?
• What happens in low-confidence cases where root cause is unclear?
• Can we configure graduated autonomy (auto-execute some actions, require approval for others)?

‍

3) Trust + governance

• How are role-based access controls enforced so users only see authorized data?
• What audit logs exist, and can they be exported for compliance reviews?
• How do you prevent cross-contamination between promotional and medical affairs use cases?

‍

4) Integration + deployment

• What connectors exist for our stack, and how hard is adding new sources?
• Do we need to migrate data, or can you query our warehouse in place?
• What’s the typical timeline from kickoff to first production agents?

‍

5) Performance + maintenance

• How often do anomaly models need retraining: automated or manual?
• What false-positive rate should we expect, and how is it tuned?
• What ongoing support is required from our analytics/data science teams?

‍

Vendors who answer these specifically with pharma customer examples are worth serious consideration. Vendors who stay vague or claim “no customization needed for any industry” usually aren’t mature enough for pharma commercial reality.

The “7-month lag” isn’t that data arrives 7 months late. It’s that NBRx moves ~7 months before TRx fully reflects it, so NBRx is your early warning. The real problem is speed: if teams only review monthly and analysis takes weeks, they spot an NBRx decline after they’ve already lost a big chunk of response time.

‍

AI agents fix that by compressing time-to-insight:

• Continuous NBRx monitoring surfaces trends within days of the latest refresh, not at the next review.
  
• They track NBRx velocity by geography/HCP segment/payer and flag abnormal shifts early.
  
• They correlate shifts with likely drivers (field activity, access barriers, competitive moves) so teams can act while it still matters.

‍

This is most valuable in launches, where first-90-day NBRx trends often predict long-term success, and slow analysis means you learn the story after the early adoption window closes.

The core difference is initiation and behavior.

• Traditional BI: users must open dashboards and look for issues.
• Conversational AI: responds when users ask questions.
• Agentic analytics: monitors continuously on its own initiative.

‍

Tellius Kaiya can play both roles:

• As the conversational interface, you ask “Why did TRx drop last month?” and get an instant answer.
  
• As the agentic engine, agents monitor metrics 24/7 and alert you to problems you didn’t know to ask about. This bridges reactive and proactive analytics in one platform.
  

The timing difference is critical. If a payer implements a new step edit on Thursday, you want field teams adjusting by Monday, not three weeks later when someone finally sees the impact. While conversational analytics helps one person get answers faster, agentic workflows can chain together data checks, root cause analysis, impact quantification, and stakeholder notifications without any human in the loop until there's an actual decision to make. Start with conversational analytics so people can get consistent answers on demand. Then agents take over continuous monitoring, driver analysis, alerting, and narrative generation.

The “black box” problem is when AI produces insights but can’t show how it got them, so users don’t know when it’s wrong. Agentic analytics reduces this by baking in explainability, validation transparency, and confidence scoring into every output.

‍

How it’s implemented:

• Lineage: shows data sources used, transformations applied, anomaly models triggered, and business rules evaluated.
  
• Drill-down: click from a narrative (e.g., “TRx declined due to payer access barriers”) into the analysis, affected payer segments, denial rates by product, and the raw supporting data.
  
• Confidence tags: every insight marked high/medium/low based on validation checks passed and statistical significance.
  
• Decision logs: human-readable logs of why the agent escalated vs ignored anomalies, ranked drivers, and what thresholds/rules applied.

‍

Tellius Kaiya provides this across automated workflows (shows plan + execution) and user-defined workflows (shows how natural-language steps became analysis steps), making reasoning inspectable and enabling systematic auditing by data science teams instead of waiting for user complaints—because even accurate AI gets abandoned if conclusions can’t be understood or verified.