Talk of “agentic AI” can illuminate real changes in technical delegation, but it can also move agency-talk toward artificial systems while human and institutional actors recede from view. This paper argues that responsible AI governance requires neither machine personhood nor metaphysical quietism, but fitting individuation: naming AI systems enough to govern, contest, authorize, and repair their uses without personifying them beyond warrant. On this account, AI systems are not autonomous moral agents, but socio-technical deployments through which judgment, authority, risk, and responsibility flow. The central question is therefore not simply “Is the AI an agent?” but “Where must judgment, contestability, and answerability be located for this deployment to remain governable?” I propose three adequacy tests: identity credentials sufficient for governance, delegation-with-answerability, and responsibility-flow mapping. These tests distinguish legitimate technical delegation from agency laundering, explanation theatre, and nominal human oversight. The result is a modest metaphysical account of AI: thick enough to locate responsibility, light enough to avoid machine mystification, and practical enough to guide institutional governance.
