Why the next trillion-dollar AI category won’t be owned by Salesforce, Workday, or integration tools — and why Cursor is the first real proof point

A system of action is an AI-native layer that sits above systems of record and turns intent into execution across tools.

Systems of record (CRM, ERP, ticketing, HRIS) are still essential. They store authoritative data, enforce permissions, and support auditability. But they were never designed to do the thing people actually struggle with every day: coordinate work across tools, handle exceptions, and complete outcomes.

That’s the opening for a new category: the system of action.

A system of action doesn’t just answer questions. It:

• interprets intent (“what we’re trying to get done”),
• orchestrates steps across tools and teams,
• coordinates humans + software,
• and learns from real-world resolution patterns (approvals, overrides, edge cases).

This layer is the next major shift in enterprise software — and the most important part is what it cannot be: it cannot be owned by a single system of record vendor, and it is unlikely to be owned by traditional integration tooling.

Systems of Action, explained simply

• What it is: An AI layer that owns intent, decisions, and execution
• Where it lives: Above systems of record like Salesforce, SAP, Zendesk, Workday, Jira
• What it replaces: Manual coordination, tribal knowledge, brittle workflows, swivel-chair operations
• What it enables: Faster execution, fewer handoffs, continuous learning from outcomes
• Why it matters: Value shifts from storing data to making things happen

Why “systems of action” are suddenly everywhere

Over the last year, a clear pattern has emerged across venture and operator analysis:

• Foundation Capital: Context graphs and decision traces
• Menlo Ventures: State of generative AI in the enterprise
• Clouded Judgement (Jamin Ball): Long live systems of record

Despite different language, these pieces converge on a shared conclusion:

AI is creating a new software layer that sits above systems of record and turns intent into execution.

That layer is increasingly described as a system of action.

What is a system of action?

A system of action is not:

• a database,
• a reporting layer,
• a workflow engine,
• or an “AI copilot” bolted onto an existing product.

A system of action is a layer that:

1. Captures intent
   Users express goals in natural language (“fix this customer escalation,” “renew this account,” “resolve this incident”), not in object updates.
2. Orchestrates multi-step execution
   It decomposes goals into steps across multiple systems of record (and sometimes across humans).
3. Coordinates humans and software
   It knows when to auto-execute and when to route to a person for approval, input, or exception handling.
4. Handles exceptions as a first-class concept
   Enterprise work is mostly exceptions. Systems of action learn the real “how work gets done” path, not the idealized one.
5. Improves via decision traces
   It gets better over time by observing outcomes, approvals, overrides, and resolution patterns — not just by adding more rules.

In one line:

Systems of record store what is. Systems of action decide and execute what should happen next.

‍

Why systems of record can’t own this layer

The core argument in the sources is not that systems of record are dying — it’s that they are insufficient as the control layer for AI-era execution.

1) Economic conflict

Systems of record are incentivized to deepen lock-in to their own models and workflows. A system of action must orchestrate across multiple systems — including competitors — which creates an inherent conflict.

2) Architectural limits

Systems of record are:

• object-centric,
• schema-driven,
• optimized for accuracy and compliance.

Systems of action are:

• intent-centric,
• context-driven,
• optimized for speed, coordination, and outcome completion.

3) Ownership mismatch

Systems of record are owned by IT/admin/platform teams.

Systems of action are owned by operators:

• support leaders,
• revenue teams,
• finance ops,
• process owners.

That mismatch matters because whoever owns the system defines what “success” means. Systems of action are evaluated on outcomes, not data cleanliness.

Why integration platforms also don’t fit

It’s tempting to think the system-of-action winner will be an integration vendor, because integration touches many systems. But classic integration platforms primarily:

• move data,
• trigger workflows,
• connect APIs.

They typically do not:

• own intent,
• accumulate durable context across time,
• capture decision traces,
• learn from outcomes in a closed loop.

They are critical plumbing — but not the decision-and-execution layer.

A system of action may use iPaaS. It won’t be iPaaS.

What this new layer actually owns

Across the sources, the system of action consistently owns five things:

• Intent: what the user/org is trying to achieve
• Orchestration: which systems, steps, and people are involved
• Exceptions: what happens when reality diverges from the happy path
• Decision traces: who decided what, when, and why
• Execution: completing outcomes, not just recommending next steps

This is why Foundation emphasizes context graphs: you need a living map of relationships, history, and decisions to execute reliably across systems and time.

Why this layer barely exists yet

If the opportunity is so big, why are there so few real examples?

Because building a system of action requires something most vendors don’t have:

Control of the action surface where real work happens.

Without that surface, you can’t:

• capture intent naturally,
• observe decision-making,
• close the loop with outcomes,
• or improve continuously.

Most “AI agents” today live as add-ons — useful, but not the execution layer.

Cursor: the first real system of action

This is why Cursor stands out as the cleanest proof point.

Cursor:

• does not replace GitHub, Jira, or CI tools,
• does not own code as a system of record,
• sits where work happens: the IDE,
• turns intent into multi-step execution,
• learns from retries, edits, and accept/reject loops,
• improves through usage, not configuration.

Cursor doesn’t just help you get an answer.

It owns the execution loop of software development.

That is what a system of action looks like when it’s real.

Why Cursor is (so far) the only clear example

Software development uniquely offers:

• a dominant action surface (the IDE),
• clear atomic actions,
• fast feedback loops,
• relatively low compliance friction.

Most enterprise domains (support, revenue, finance, ops) don’t yet have an equivalent execution surface. That’s why the category feels obvious in theory — but thin in concrete examples.

The lack of examples is not a weakness of the thesis.

It’s proof the category is just beginning.

What this means for the future of enterprise AI

The takeaway is not “build better copilots.”

It’s this:

The next generation of enterprise software will be systems of action — AI-native layers above systems of record that turn intent into execution.

Systems of record will remain the source of truth.
Integration will remain essential plumbing.
But value will increasingly move to the layer that decides and acts.

Cursor is the first clear signal of what’s coming next.

Why Worknet is focused here

At Worknet, we believe the opportunity is not replacing systems of record. It’s building the action layer above them — where real work happens, decisions are made, exceptions are handled, and outcomes are driven end-to-end.

That’s the system of action era.

And it’s just getting started.

References

1. Foundation Capital — “AI’s trillion-dollar opportunity: Context graphs” (Dec 22, 2025)
   https://foundationcapital.com/context-graphs-ais-trillion-dollar-opportunity/
2. Menlo Ventures — “2025: The State of Generative AI in the Enterprise” (Dec 9, 2025)
   https://menlovc.com/perspective/2025-the-state-of-generative-ai-in-the-enterprise/
3. Clouded Judgement (Jamin Ball) — “Clouded Judgement 12.12.25: Long Live Systems of Record” (Dec 12, 2025)
   https://cloudedjudgement.substack.com/p/clouded-judgement-121225-long-live
4. Systems of record lose ground - Sarah Wang https://a16z.com/newsletter/big-ideas-2026-part-1

‍