← All AI Engineer talks

AI Engineer World's Fair 2025

Production software keeps breaking, and it will only get worse. Here's how Traversal is fixing it.

Read the talk

Finding the cause of a production incident in a sea of telemetry

Traversal combines causal analysis, semantic reasoning, and parallel agents to investigate production failures, with a DigitalOcean case showing how findings reach engineers in Slack.

From a talk by Anish Agarwal and Matthew Schoenbauer

Before you start: Familiarity with production logs, metrics, deployments, and incident response will help; no causal machine learning background is required.

Faster code, harder incidents

If AI makes writing software easier, what happens to the work of keeping it running? Anish Agarwal, CEO of Traversal, opens with three interspersed engineering activities: designing systems, developing their business logic and DevOps machinery, and troubleshooting them when production breaks. Matthew Schoenbauer, who joins him for the customer example, was the first person to join the company.

Tools such as Cursor, Windsurf, and GitHub Copilot reduce the effort spent on development. The attractive outcome is that AI handles both implementation and production troubleshooting, leaving engineers more time for the creative decisions of system design. But accelerating implementation does not, by itself, automate the investigation that follows a failure.

Agarwal predicts a less pleasant outcome if troubleshooting remains manual. Engineers will have less firsthand context about code that AI wrote, while the ease of writing more software will encourage increasingly complex systems. More complexity and less human context make production failures harder to explain. In that scenario, time saved during development moves into QA and on-call work instead of design.

Slide showing small System Design and Development columns beside a large Troubleshooting column filled with fire cartoons. Bullets cite reduced human context and more complex systems.
The current trajectory: troubleshooting takes over the software engineering workflow.
0:150:28
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

0:15 · section reference included

The manual incident loop

Observability products such as Grafana, Datadog, Splunk, Elastic, and Sentry process telemetry and make it visible. That gives engineers many views of system health, but it leaves them with a search problem when something breaks. Agarwal calls the first stage “dashboard dumpster diving”: multiple people search dashboards and logs in parallel, hoping to find a promising lead.

A lead is only the beginning. The investigation then moves through a recurring sequence:

  1. Find a symptom worth following. A dashboard or log suggests what went wrong.
  2. Connect it to a change. Examine a pull request, configuration change, or another modification that could explain the symptom.
  3. Inspect the code. Look for the mechanism connecting that change to the observed failure.
  4. Expand the investigation. When the explanation remains unclear, bring in more teams and repeat the search.

Agarwal describes incident channels swelling from dozens of people to as many as a hundred. Each additional team can contribute expertise, but the loop still depends on people discovering which evidence matters and assembling the explanation.

Orange arrows connect telemetry dashboards, a promising lead, code and change logs, and PR and change rollback. A return arrow is labeled with frustrating iterations and more teams onboarded.
The incident troubleshooting loop moves from dashboards to code investigation and back again with more teams.
2:513:05
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

2:51 · section reference included

Detection, explanation, and search are different jobs

Traditional AIOps applies machine learning and statistical anomaly detection to this problem. Agarwal’s objection is that a numerical representation can fail to capture the behavior of a complex, changing production system. The result, in his experience, is excessive false positives: a flood of alerts with very little guidance about which one explains the incident. Detecting unusual behavior does not necessarily identify the change that caused it.

An LLM addresses a different part of the job. Paste a selected log into ChatGPT, and it may help explain the message. But that assumes someone has already found the relevant log. Agarwal describes production environments with petabytes of telemetry and potentially a trillion logs: selecting the evidence is the hard part. A larger context window does not remove the storage, memory, and retention constraints of that data. He also distinguishes the models’ semantic understanding from their weaker handling of numerical structure.

An agent can search by choosing tools, examining their results, and deciding what to do next. Agarwal discusses ReAct-style agents through the example of implementations guided by runbooks or a higher-level workflow. ReAct itself interleaves reasoning and actions; it does not require a fixed runbook. The operational objection here is to depending on instructions that, in the team’s experience, can already be stale when written. A changing system makes an old investigation path a poor guide to a new failure.

Removing that prescribed path creates another problem: a broad search through simple tools can become a long sequential loop. Agarwal warns that such a search could run for days or time out, while he sets a useful incident-response target of two to five minutes. This motivates combining approaches rather than expecting any one to solve the entire investigation.

4:234:39
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

4:23 · section reference included

Causal analysis, semantics, and parallel search

Traversal’s goal is out-of-sample troubleshooting: investigating a new incident from first principles, without needing a previously solved example of that failure. Its first ingredient is causal machine learning. A production failure often creates other failures around it, so many signals move together. The task is to distinguish the initiating cause from the correlated downstream effects.

The second ingredient is semantic reasoning over log fields, metric-source metadata, and code. Numerical analysis can expose relationships in telemetry; reasoning models can interpret what the fields and operations mean. The third ingredient is the control flow that brings those capabilities together. Agarwal describes swarms of agents making thousands of parallel tool calls to search telemetry efficiently and exhaustively. That is the architecture’s stated approach, rather than a disclosed algorithm or measured coverage guarantee.

ComponentRole in the investigation
Causal machine learningSeparate possible causes from correlated failures
Semantic reasoningInterpret log fields, metric metadata, and code
Parallel agent swarmsSearch many investigative paths concurrently

The components address different bottlenecks: interpreting numerical behavior, understanding its meaning, and exploring enough evidence within an incident’s time constraints. Agarwal attributes the combination to the team’s research and broader recent work, without naming particular papers in this passage.

The architecture maps back onto the manual loop. Agent swarms and causal analysis look for promising leads in the telemetry. Code agents and vector search then help connect those leads to pull requests or change logs. As the investigation assembles context, it can bring in the appropriate team with an explanation of why that team is needed. The intended improvement is not simply fewer dashboard clicks: it is a more informed handoff between evidence discovery, change investigation, and human action.

7:127:23
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

7:12 · section reference included

From trading systems to incident investigation

Schoenbauer’s motivation came from high-frequency trading. He wanted to spend his time writing good code, but found himself repeatedly debugging production incidents. Eventually he quit. His introductory slide places him inside the familiar fire cartoon: the frustration is having to keep working while the surrounding system burns.

Slide titled “Hi, I’m Matt!” shows a seated man composited into the “This is fine” fire cartoon, above the line “and I was tired of being that dog in the fire.”
“Hi, I’m Matt!” pairs an introduction with the frustration of being the dog in the fire.

Later, in a causal AI class, the instructor mentioned that causal methods might automate incident-remediation workflows. Schoenbauer approached him about a research project and discovered that he had already started a company to pursue the idea. That conversation became an invitation to join Traversal. Roughly a year later, Schoenbauer presents the customer work that followed.

10:0910:20
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

10:09 · section reference included

From an incident trigger to a deployment finding

In the workflow Schoenbauer presents, Traversal begins investigating when an incident starts. It receives the same small amount of initial context that the engineers receive, then orchestrates a swarm of AI SRE agents to search observability data in parallel. The search happens in the background while engineers remain in their incident channel.

In the presented case, Traversal returned its findings to the incident Slack channel after about five minutes. It identified a deployment whose changes had caused cascading issues across the system. That finding gave engineers a concrete remediation option: roll back the deployment. Schoenbauer reports that DigitalOcean engineers confirmed the finding as correct and as the explanation that solved the issue. The described action belongs to the engineers; the case does not claim that Traversal autonomously performed the rollback.

Engineers who need more than the Slack summary can inspect the investigation in Traversal’s UI:

  • Evidence: relevant observability data is cited alongside the findings.
  • Candidate causes: possible root causes have confidence levels and accompanying reasoning.
  • Impact: an interactive, AI-generated map lets engineers explore the affected system.
  • Follow-up questions: engineers can ask how the incident affects the part of the stack they care about.

This lets an engineer move from a proposed explanation to its supporting evidence, then narrow the investigation to their own operational responsibility.

14:0214:14
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

14:02 · section reference included

The infrastructure behind the investigation

The broader deployment problem is heterogeneous: different enterprises use different observability tools, and the investigator has to work across those systems. Schoenbauer describes broad integration coverage and an operating scale reaching trillions of logs. At that scale, incident investigation is an AI infrastructure problem as much as an agent problem. Choosing the next investigative action is only useful if the system can also retrieve and process the evidence behind it.

The underlying search pattern extends beyond production debugging: a large dataset contains a small piece of information that explains what matters. Schoenbauer points to network observability and cybersecurity as other domains where parallel agents and exhaustive search could be useful. These are proposed applications of the same pattern, not additional customer results presented in the talk.

The closing invitation reflects the range of work involved. Traversal’s team combines AI researchers, people from developer-tool companies, AI product engineers, and practitioners from high-frequency quantitative finance who understand the cost of downtime. Schoenbauer emphasizes mutual support and enjoyment of working together, then invites interested people to join. The aspiration returns to the opening problem: giving engineers more of their working lives back from production incidents.

15:5216:11
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

15:52 · section reference included

Resources

From the talk

Updates since the talk

Read the complete timestamped transcript
  1. 0:00

    [upbeat music]

  2. 0:15

    Um, hi everyone. Thank you for, uh, coming to our talk. Uh, so he was kind enough to already introduce us. Um, so I'm the CEO. Matthew was the first person who joined us.

  3. 0:24

    Uh, if you have any difficult questions, please direct it towards Matt. [laughing]

  4. 0:28

    Um, if I think about the three major categories of, of software engineering, at least as we see it, there's three things that show up to me. There's system design, where you think about, you know, how do you actually architect a system.

  5. 0:38

    A lot of the, the talks we saw in this, uh, track have been about that in some sense, at a high level. Second is actually developing software, right? Putting in the business logic of your particular company and, and all of the DevOps that comes with it.

  6. 0:50

    And then when you, when your software actually hits production, invariably it's gonna break, and then troubleshooting of these production incidents, right? At the heart of it, those are the three things interspersed with each other as you think about developing production-grade software.

  7. 1:03

    Now, what, what's been happening with the magic of, um, AI software engineering tools like Cursor or Windsurf or GitHub Copilot, and there's many more others, the, the part around development is getting narrowed, right?

  8. 1:13

    That's the part we're relying on all these dis- different systems to do it for us, and increasingly so, right? So over the next year, I'd say more and more of what we see, uh, is gonna make the development part of it really seamless.

  9. 1:23

    Right? The question is, what happens to the other two parts of this entire s- software engineering workflow? The first one being system design, and the other one being troubleshooting.

  10. 1:32

    Right. Now, what is the promise that is, um, as we think about what software engineering could look like, is that we'll get to focus on just the most high impact and creative work that happens in engineering, which is system design, right?

  11. 1:43

    So we are hoping that AI will write our code for us and also troubleshoot all the production incidents, so we just get to focus on the fun stuff, which is the creative work of how do we put all these different pieces together.

  12. 1:52

    That's the hope. Um, I actually think that to make that happen, there's something missing, right? Which is our-- the, the problem of troubleshooting. How do you automate that part of it?

  13. 2:01

    And I think if we just continue in the way we're going, it's actually gonna look the opposite. Is that most of our time, I think, is gonna be spent doing on-call for the maj- vast majority of us.

  14. 2:09

    And why is that? I think troubleshooting is gonna get more and more complex as we go along. Uh, first is that as we write-- as these software engineering, AI software engineering systems write more and more of our code, humans are gonna have less context about what happened.

  15. 2:22

    They don't understand the inner workings of, of the code. They don't have all the context in their minds, right? Second, we're gonna push these systems to the limit, so we're gonna write more and more complex systems, just like the things we saw in the previous talks, right?

  16. 2:32

    So the system's gonna get more complex, and we're gonna have less understanding of it. And as a result, troubleshooting is gonna get really, really painful and complex. And I think that's where we're gonna spend most of our time in this world, which is just QA and on-call, right?

  17. 2:43

    And that'll be kind of a sad existence for ourselves if that's what happens. Right? So this, I think, is the grim reality if we don't do something about it.

  18. 2:51

    So now, if you think about the workflow of troubleshooting, what does it look like? In my head, you'll have all of these different wonderful companies like Grafana, Datadog, Splunk, Elastic, uh, Sentry, whatever it might be.

  19. 3:05

    And what they do essentially is they help process data and help you visualize it, right? And so if anyone who's been on a Datadog dashboard or whatever it might be, you have these beautiful dashboards, thousands of them, to give you some cut as to what is the health of your system.

  20. 3:18

    Now, something will break invariably in production. Then what happens next? The next step, as I see it, is what I call dashboard dumpster diving, right? You'll go through all these different thousands of dashboards to try to find the one that explains what happened, and you'll try to have many different people doing it in parallel.

  21. 3:31

    At some point, you might come up with some sort of promising lead, being like, "Okay, maybe that was it. That's the dashboard that kinda explains what happened," or, "That's the log that kinda explains what happened."

  22. 3:39

    Then you wanna connect it to some sort of change you made in your system, right? As we think about root cause analysis, it's typically you're trying to connect it to some particular change in the system, whether it's a pull request or a change of your configuration files, whatever it might be, right?

  23. 3:51

    And that's where you start, say, that's the second stage of your troubleshooting, which you stare aggressively at your code base till something, you know, some sort of, uh, inspiration hits you.

  24. 4:00

    And then most of the time it doesn't hit you, and then you kind of bring more teams into the mix because you know it's maybe not your issue, and suddenly you have thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred people in a Slack incident channel trying to figure out what happened.

  25. 4:12

    And this loop keeps going on and on and on. Right? So the status quo of what incident, production incident debugging looks like clearly is, is not optimal, and I think it's only gonna get worse based for all the reasons I talked about earlier.

  26. 4:23

    Okay. And obviously this problem has been around since software has been written, and it's not like we're the first people to think about thinking of this issue, right? The problem is that the existing approaches we've taken to troubleshooting or using machine learning and AI towards it have not worked, and I don't believe will work for really fundamental

  27. 4:39

    reasons. Right? So the first one is what we call AIOps, broadly speaking, which is we're using traditional machine learning and statistical anomaly detection type techniques to help figure out what happened, right?

  28. 4:50

    The problem is, if any of you have actually tried these techniques in production systems, it leads to too many false positives. Your system is too complex, it's too dynamic.

  29. 4:57

    And if you just try to come up with some sort of numerical representation of your data, it's gonna be not representative enough. And what you'll see is that you'll have thousands of alerts happening.

  30. 5:06

    Maybe one of them is useful, but you just don't know which one. Right? So typically it leads to more signal... Sorry, more noise than signal, is what AIOps has led to, sadly.

  31. 5:13

    Okay, now we have this new world of LLMs. Okay, so one option is, okay, let me... I'm sure many people here have taken a log and put it in ChatGPT and said, "Explain to me what happened.

  32. 5:22

    What, what's going on in this log?" Right? That's something I think all of us have done. Now, that's okay if you know which log you wanna look at. But if I'm actually dealing with production-grade systems, you're gonna have petabytes of data.

  33. 5:32

    You might have a trillion logs. Which one do I look at? You can't take all of these different logs, the trillion logs, and put it into context. Right? Even if you have infinite context, it doesn't matter.

  34. 5:42

    The size of these systems are so large that forget about context window, it doesn't even fit into memory. It doesn't even fit into a cluster. That's why you have such difficult retention policies for data, right?

  35. 5:50

    For logs and metrics. And second, the problem with these LLMs are, is that they don't have a very good understanding of the numerical representation of the data. So they have a good semantic understanding, they don't have a good numerical re- representation, and also the context isn't big enough.

  36. 6:02

    Okay, now the third thing we might think about is let's build an agent, right? Like, let's build a React-style agent. The problem with that is that if you think about these React-style agents, what they're gonna do is they're gonna assume you have some access to some sort of runbook, some sort of meta workflow that it can rely

  37. 6:17

    on to help you make the decision of what next tool to call. The problem is any runbook you actually put into place is deprecated the second you create it.

  38. 6:24

    I don't know how many of you have used runbooks, but typically what we've found in my experience and the team's experience is that they're typically deprecated by the time they're built, right?

  39. 6:32

    And so that workflow that the agent is gonna go through is not gonna be, um, is, is, is just not gonna be optimal. And also, if you try to make it do a much more broad search of your system, if you give it these simple tools, it's gonna be take too long, right?

  40. 6:46

    If you just put it in a, into like a loop, tool, tool calling loop, it might take days to run if, if it doesn't time out, right? And typically, if you're trying to solve an incident, you need to solve it in two to five minutes for it to be really useful, right?

  41. 6:57

    So every minute counts when things are down. So as a result, none of these three things, if you do them just by themselves, is enough to really dou- troubleshoot.

  42. 7:04

    There's fundamental issues in all of them that I think need to be solved by thinking about them in a more collective way. And that's really what we're trying to do at Traver- Traversal, right?

  43. 7:12

    Well, what you need to do with Traversal is, what we're trying to do with Traversal is really good out-of-sample autonomous troubleshooting, which is that if you have a new incident, we've never seen it before, can you troubleshoot it from first principles debugging?

  44. 7:23

    And to do so, I think we need to combine a few different ideas, the first one being statistical, s- the second one being semantics, and then the third one being a novel agentic control flow.

  45. 7:33

    And with statistics, what I mean is, is causal machine learning, so that's where a lot of our research came. So the idea of causal machine learning is this idea of being correlation isn't causation.

  46. 7:41

    So how do you get these AI systems to pick up cause and effect relationships from data programmatically? That's what we spend a lot of time thinking about. And obviously, that problem shows up a lot in production incidents because typically, when something breaks, a lot of things break around them, right?

  47. 7:52

    So there's a lot of correlated failures which are not the root cause. And so thinking about it programmatically is what the study of causal machine learning is. The second being semantics, right, which is actually trying to push the limits of what these reasoning models can give you, uh, to help you understand the semantic, rich semantic context that

  48. 8:06

    exists in, in log fields, in the metadata source of the metric, and so on and so forth, right? Or in code itself, right? And so by combining causal machine learning, which is the best of what statistics gives you, and reasoning models, which is the best of what semantics gives you, you now have at least the tools, the

  49. 8:21

    basic tools to put into place so that you can actually deal with this issue. Now we have to figure out how do you actually make this work in an agentic system?

  50. 8:28

    And what we found is this idea of swarms of agent, where you have these thousands of parallel agentic tool calls happening, giving you this kind of exhaustive search through all of your telemetry in some sort of efficient way.

  51. 8:37

    That's what brings it together and helps you actually deal with this issue, right? So just to repeat, it's statistics, which is causal machine learning, semantics, which is these reasoning models, and this novel agentic control flow, which we call the swarms of agent.

  52. 8:50

    All of this put together in the right elegant way is what actually helps you autonomously troubleshoot, right? A lot of the work we, we rely on is based on our years of researche- years of experience as researchers.

  53. 9:00

    We've written a number of papers on these various different fields, and also relying on a lot of the research that has happened, uh, in general in the field over the last couple of years that we're relying on to actually make this into a reality.

  54. 9:12

    Um, and so if you think about the, the troubleshooting workflow we talked about earlier and all the pains of it, each of the different things can help remove or alleviate some of those pains.

  55. 9:20

    So the idea of finding the promising lead from your sea of information, that's where this agent swarm and causal machine learning put together really help. And then from the promising lead, connecting it to a specific change in your system, whether it's a pull request or change log, that's where a lot of the work that's happening in code

  56. 9:34

    agents and also vector search, we're relying on it. Uh, as this get better, we get better, right? And as a result, because you're building this context in real time and agents are doing it, they're pulling the right team at the, with the right context at the right time.

  57. 9:45

    And so don't-- people don't get pulled into an incident and being like, "I don't really know why I'm being pulled in here," which I'm sure many of you have been experienced in your time as engineers.

  58. 9:53

    Um, and so now I'm gonna hand it over to Matt to actually talk through a real-life, uh, case study, uh, that we have done with one of our customers.

  59. 10:02

    Hi, everybody. Uh, I'm Matt, as Anish said. Thank you. Uh, no, I, I don't own any of their outfits. Um,

  60. 10:09

    so I'm gonna tell you a little bit about how I got involved with Traversal, and I'm gonna show you how we are helping out some of our customers. So, uh, in my career, I spent most of my time in high-frequency trading.

  61. 10:20

    Uh, what I wanted to spend my time doing there was, uh, you know, focusing and writing beautiful code. What I ended up doing much more often than not was debugging production incidents.

  62. 10:30

    So I got sick of this, as you might understand, and, uh, very happily quit. Sometime later, I, I found myself in a class on causal AI. Uh, the guy teaching the class seemed pretty smart.

  63. 10:44

    It, uh... Looking back then, it may have just been the fact that he was much better dressed than your average computer science professor, and he had a, you know, a fancy accent.

  64. 10:50

    Um, but he, he mentioned in class one day, sort of an offhand comment it seemed, that, "Oh, you might be able to use causal AI to automate incident remediation workflows."

  65. 11:02

    And I'm sitting in the back, back of the class, and my head explodes, like this sounds like an amazing idea. And so I casually come up to him at the end of class and say, "You know, maybe we might wanna do a research project on this."

  66. 11:12

    And, uh, little did I know that at the time he had actually started a company to solve this problem. So he in- invited me to join him on that journey, and, uh, very grateful for that.

  67. 11:21

    And so fast-forward a year though, and we have, uh, we built something that we're quite proud of, and I'll, I'll show you how it works.

  68. 11:30

    Uh, but to begin, uh, I'm gonna be talking about a client of ours, DigitalOcean. DigitalOcean is a cloud provider. They serve hundreds of thousands of customers every day. And I'm gonna tell you about what, uh, the life of an on-call engineer was like prior to Traversal.

  69. 11:47

    So imagine you're in the middle of a productive workday. You're focused in, you're writing code, um, and then you get hit with a message, uh, describing something that's broken horribly.

  70. 11:58

    It's, it's causing issues for customers. It might say something like, "Powered. Uh, some potential compromise of some host assigned to, you know, a bad application." And my apologies in advance here, this is not a demo per se.

  71. 12:10

    This is us telling you in the real world how, uh, we are, we are solving issues for our customers, so apologies for the redactions that you're seeing here.

  72. 12:20

    So you get this context, and then you get thrown into an incident Slack channel. And in this Slack channel, you and 40, 50, 60 other engineers begin frantically searching to find what's the cause of the customer issue, right?

  73. 12:32

    But you're not looking through some documents. You're not looking through a database table. You're looking through hundreds of millions of metrics, which are viewable on thousands of dashboards. And beyond this, you also have tens of billions of logs that you might wanna find, and these are coming from thousands of services.

  74. 12:52

    And what's the thing you're looking for here? You're looking for a, something that's comparatively microscopic. So this might be a single log that describes the thing that went wrong, the root cause of the incident.

  75. 13:03

    And you know, if you're lucky, after a few hours of everybody frantically searching, the incident gets resolved and, you know, everybody can go back to work. That is, until the next production incident comes and the cycle repeats itself.

  76. 13:16

    So this is a very familiar situation to me. Uh, unfortunately, it may be a very similar situation to all of you. Uh, but things have changed for DigitalOcean. So

  77. 13:30

    what Traversal's been able to do for DigitalOcean is make their mission-critical infrastructure far more resilient. So you'll see here that, uh, mean time to resolution, uh, MTTR, has reduced pretty dramatically for DigitalOcean.

  78. 13:42

    We've measured that's about 40% reduction in the amount of time that it takes to find and resolve production incidents. And all of these minutes mean a lot of pain for a engineer that's, that's now been removed, and also thousands of dollars for each minute.

  79. 13:57

    So now I'll be able to show you how this works.

  80. 14:02

    So in the world post- ;- Traversal, rather than this frantic search going on all the time, when an incident kicks off, the Traversal AI, the ambient Traversal AI, begins its investigation.

  81. 14:14

    And the thing that it begins its investigation with is the same little bit of context that engineers get when the incident starts. And given this small amount of context, Traversal AI orchestrates a swarm of expert AI SREs to sift through petabytes of observability data all in parallel.

  82. 14:34

    And so what was done previously manually is done exhaustively and automatically.

  83. 14:40

    And then after about five minutes, Traversal comes back to the users right where they are in the incident Slack channel and tells them what happened. So here you can see that, uh, Traversal identified an issue.

  84. 14:51

    There was a deployment that introduced changes, a cascade of issues throughout the entire system. And when engineers see this, they can roll it back, they can move on and, and get back to their good work.

  85. 15:02

    And you'll note here that, uh, Traversal, the engineers at DigitalOcean noted that this was, this was the thing that solved the issue. This was the correct finding. And this is happening all the time.

  86. 15:11

    Engineers that want to dive in further can look in the Traversal UI where you have a wealth of information that Traversal unearths, uh, describing what happened with the incident.

  87. 15:19

    It cites relevant observability data just like any good engineer would. It gives you confidence levels for the potential root cause candidates. It explains its reasoning. And if you wanna dive in even further, Traversal allows you to interact with an, uh, AI-generated impact map, and you can even ask follow-up questions to Traversal to describe, to ask questions like,

  88. 15:39

    "How does this incident impact the part of the stack that I care the most about?" And this entire experience is exactly the kind of thing that I was dying for in my previous roles, and I'm so excited to share that it's now a reality.

  89. 15:52

    So thank you. Uh, so but this is not just happening for DigitalOcean. We're working across a very hetergen- heterogeneous group of, uh, enterprise environments. Uh, so you'll see here, the thing that I want you to focus on here is that we're talking to basically every observ- observ- observability tool out there, and we're talking to them on a

  90. 16:11

    massive scale. We're talking trillions of logs. So yes, it's an AI agents problem, and I, I like thinking about the AI agents problem, but in reality, this is just as much an AI infrastructure problem.

  91. 16:24

    Furthermore, the pr- pr- problem that we're solving here is one where we have a massive set of data and we're looking for this small piece of information that's telling you everything that you need to know.

  92. 16:34

    This is sort of a needle in the haystack problem. And we're focused right now on observability, but there are plenty of other domains where there are simpo- similar principles that can be applied.

  93. 16:43

    In my experience that when you're doing network observability, you're working on cybersecurity, you find similar patterns here that I hope that you all in your r- respective domains can take from this that these strategies of exhaustive search and swarms of agents can be applied in this, in, in these domains as well.

  94. 17:03

    Uh, not only is this an amazing problem to work on, frankly, we've assembled an amazing group of people to do it. Uh, we've got AI researchers from the top AI labs in the world that, that are pushing the limits of what AI, what AI can do.

  95. 17:13

    We have people from top dev tools companies who know what it takes to build a tool that developers love to use. We have fantastic AI product engineers who know, who know how to make delightful AI products.

  96. 17:24

    And of course, we've got high-frequency quant finance traders who can deal with pain and know what the pain of production downtime actually means.

  97. 17:32

    But I think what's, uh, most special about the Traversal team is not necessarily the skills that the, that we bring to the table, but, you know, it's, it's really unusual, it's really rare to be able to find a group of people that aren't really all out there for themselves, that everybody's working for the betterment of each other.

  98. 17:46

    And we have a lot of fun coming into work, and everybody loves showing up to the office, and this is what makes Traversal, in my opinion, an amazing place to work.

  99. 17:54

    And so if the team or the problem sounds interesting to you, please, uh, scan the QR code, look at one of these websites, and, uh, help us try to create this picture of me that we have right here for all, all the engineers in the world.

  100. 18:05

    Thank you very much. [upbeat music]