Two pieces of diagnosis, now the prescription. The override layer is not a role you hire or a committee you convene, it is a structural property of the organization that requires four things coexisting or none of them work: knowledge sufficient to evaluate the AI, resources sufficient to do the work, timing where a human no actually stops the thing, and accountability for whether oversight was performed rather than whether the campaign hit its number. Marketing cannot police marketing, so this has to live with the CFO or audit committee. The operating moves are concrete: define outcomes the bots cannot fake (cash that clears, verified repeat purchases, cohort LTV against actual revenue, the slow metrics that resist optimization gaming), build a verification function that does not report to marketing, define authority tiers in writing and hold to them when a vendor demos a shiny agentic capability the CFO loves, and stop cutting the senior layer because the expertise required to override AI is being removed at exactly the moment it is most needed. Most organizations will not do any of this because the structural incentives are aligned against the structural fix. Some will do it half-right, which is worse, because a partial override layer is security theater that lets you tell the board you solved the problem until the failure that was always going to be the one that mattered finally arrives. A small number will do all of it, look slower in the short term, get derided as behind on AI, and in three to five years be the only ones whose numbers actually mean anything, because boring is going to be the new black. The closing point is the one worth sitting with: adtech is not the story, adtech is the canary, and the same dynamic is coming for healthcare, finance, education, and government, where the body count will not be invisible