Imagine the scenario that unfolds after an AI-related problem is reported.
A security analyst confronts a ticket indicating that an internal AI tool has produced an erroneous recommendation within a live workflow. Suddenly, this isn't a theoretical discussion; the stakes are palpable. Questions arise: is this a security failure, a modeling error, a privacy breach, or merely "something the AI did"? The risk register acknowledges the potential for inaccurate outputs, complete with a severity rating.
Yet, at the heart of the matter is the pressing question: who holds the power to take action?
This issue encapsulates a significant gap in many AI governance frameworks. While organizations have made strides in identifying and categorizing AI risks, they often falter when it comes to effectively managing real-world incidents that require investigation, containment, and resolution.
The Limitations of Risk Registers
Risk registers serve a valuable purpose. They provide transparency by helping organizations identify risks, assess their severity, assign ownership, and communicate these issues to leadership. As companies ramp up their AI adoption, this visibility is crucial, especially since many are still exploring the extent of AI integration, the data involved, and the business processes impacted.
However, a risk register cannot act as a control mechanism. Security professionals understand that merely listing vulnerabilities does not constitute a vulnerability management strategy, just as recording third-party risks does not equate to an effective vendor risk management program. These documents merely scratch the surface.
AI risk presents a parallel challenge. A risk entry stating “model output may be inaccurate” falls short of specifying who monitors output quality, what constitutes an acceptable error rate, or who has the authority to halt the system. Likewise, a risk note indicating “sensitive data may be exposed” does not address whether prompts are logged, if outputs are subject to review, or whether the vendor retains rights to the submitted data—leaving critical gaps in operational readiness when incidents occur.
Understanding Non-Traditional AI Incidents
AI-related incidents differ significantly from conventional cybersecurity events. Typical breaches exhibit recognizable patterns such as unauthorized access, data breaches, malware infiltration, or compromised credentials. In contrast, AI failures often manifest in subtler forms: erroneous recommendations, misleading summaries, unsafe automations, or outputs that inadvertently influence decision-making.
This doesn't diminish their importance. Consider an AI tool in a security environment that incorrectly classifies an alert, or a generative AI assistant inadvertently exposing sensitive information. A model embedded within organizational processes may drift and produce erratic outcomes over time, while a vendor-managed AI feature could change behavior post-update without proper evaluation.
Thus, a structured approach to manage these events is imperative. Not every AI error should trigger a full-blown security incident response. However, every business utilizing AI in critical workflows must establish a clear process for reporting, triaging, and escalating AI-related events to prevent delays caused by ownership disputes while the repercussions escalate.
The first step lies in defining what constitutes an AI incident. This definition should encompass a broad spectrum of concerns—security, privacy, operational integrity, and compliance—while remaining specific enough that employees recognize when to escalate an issue. A confusing chatbot response may not warrant the same urgency as a data exposure, yet both scenarios should include a structured review pathway.
The Necessity of Evidence in Investigations
Evidence is crucial for responding to incidents in any capacity. While this concept is well understood in cybersecurity, it often gets overlooked during AI governance discussions. If an organization fails to reconstruct the sequence of events, the involved data, and the outputs generated, investigating the incident or defending its response poses a significant challenge.
AI systems can complicate the collection of evidence. It is common for prompts not to be logged, outputs not to be preserved, and vendor tools to offer limited visibility. Changes in model versions can further obfuscate the trail. When users replicate AI-generated content in other systems without retaining the source, or when business teams regard AI outputs merely as recommendations, the complication increases.
Security leaders must advocate for rigorous evidence requirements prior to AI systems moving into production. Organizations should understand available logs, their retention periods, access control, and whether they suffice for effective investigation. For critical use cases, monitoring should include model versions, prompt histories, output records, user actions, data origins, and subsequent decisions made based on AI inputs.
This doesn't imply that every AI interaction needs exhaustive oversight; monitoring should fit the level of risk involved. Still, the core principle holds: If an AI system impacts significant operational decisions, it must maintain a trail of evidence when failures arise.
Clarifying Ownership is Essential
AI ownership can often be disjointed. A business unit might spearhead the use case, while data scientists configure the model, IT manages the platform, security assesses risks, and vendors supply the underlying technology. Though various teams are involved, accountability frequently remains murky post-deployment.
This ambiguity can be perilous during an incident. If an AI tool begins generating unreliable outputs, clarity on system ownership and the decision-making authority regarding whether to continue or pause its use is vital. A governance committee may oversee operations, but they typically cannot function as the operational leader for every AI deployment.
Security teams should ensure that definitive ownership is assigned to AI systems, especially those integral to sensitive functions. This ownership must encompass responsibilities for monitoring, managing exceptions, providing user guidance, coordinating with vendors, and escalating incidents. Importantly, it should also incorporate decision-making rights because mere accountability without authority doesn't equip teams to act decisively.
The pressing question often remains: who has the authority to suspend, restrict, roll back, or entirely retire an AI system when risk tolerance is breached? Failing to settle this inquiry ahead of time may force an organization to seek answers under duress.
The Necessity of an AI Response Playbook
An effective AI incident response playbook should not be overly complex; it must be actionable. Such a playbook should articulate how to report AI-related concerns, the event triage process, evidence preservation, investigation protocols, the involvement of legal or privacy teams, and the lines of authority for operational decisions. It should also clarify the thresholds for notifying executive leadership.
The playbook must align with the risk profile of the particular AI system. For example, a low-risk internal tool may require a streamlined review process, while systems that impact security operations, comply with regulations, facilitate customer communication, or engage in financial analysis demand stricter oversight and escalation procedures. The response framework must be tailored to fit the associated risk of the application.
This represents an opportunity for security teams to impose discipline without overwhelming AI governance with red tape. They already possess the expertise to develop escalation pathways, preserve evidence, conduct incident reviews, and refine controls post-failure. The goal should be extending this operational proficiency into AI governance proactively, circumventing incidents that necessitate immediate reaction.
Subsequent to significant AI incidents, organizations should carry out post-event evaluations with the intent to learn rather than assign blame. Were the monitoring systems effective? Was accountability designated clearly? Was there sufficient evidence for review? Did the vendor respond appropriately? Were users clear on their allowable actions? And, crucially, did the organization know who had decision-making power?
The Imperative for Actionable Governance
Discussions about AI governance often center around policy, ethics, or compliance challenges. While these aspects are undoubtedly relevant, the reality is that once AI systems transition into production environments, governance morphs into a security execution issue. Risks must be monitored, events must be scrutinized, and appropriate actions must be taken.
This reality highlights the necessity for governance that is not merely theoretical but can withstand the pressures of real-time operations, particularly when decisions must be made quickly under incomplete information. In these scenarios, a risk register might articulate organizational expectations but won’t dictate immediate responses.
Security leaders shouldn't await a comprehensive AI governance strategy to materialize from other departments; rather, they should be proactive in shaping the operational models right now, especially while many organizations still possess the flexibility to adjust their approaches. The aim is not to manage every AI risk exclusively, but to ensure that AI risk can be effectively addressed once these systems become integral to operations.
A risk register may flag potential issues, but an incident response plan dictates the actions to take when those issues escalate. For AI governance to hold significance within security agendas, organizations must have both components in place.
This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?
