Industrial AI security and governance
Industrial AI security and governance for data and decisions
Before choosing a model, agree what the system can access, what it may do and who is responsible when something changes.
Decide where information may travel
Map source data, prompts, retrieved documents, logs, backups and support access. Compare offline, on-premises, edge and approved online options against the actual restrictions. Local model hosting alone does not establish the boundary of the complete application. Your security and data owners approve the design and permitted interfaces.
Limit access and actions
Users and services should receive the access needed for their specific work. An agent's ability to read a document does not imply permission to change a record or send a message. Consequential actions need a defined approval rule. Connections to operational systems should begin with explicitly approved access; control-system changes require separate engineering and authorization.
Reading a batch record for review does not authorise release of the batch. Analysing treatment or production data does not authorise a control change. Record those limits in the application and test that they hold when information is missing or conflicting.
Make changes traceable
Version models, prompts, configuration and relevant knowledge sources. Keep appropriate logs of outputs, approvals and overrides so incidents can be investigated. Review third-party software and model licences before committing to a deployment or transfer. Sensitive credentials belong in an approved secrets-management process, not in prompts or documentation.
Make responsibilities explicit
Use this responsibility record to identify the owner, evidence and decisions needed for your engagement. An activity is included only when it is part of the agreed scope.
Who is responsible?
Confirm these responsibilities in the delivery agreement. The table does not create a managed-service commitment.
On a narrow screen, scroll the table sideways to read each responsibility.
| Responsibility | Client | NeoBram | Agreement needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intended use and operational acceptance | Own and authorize the business use and production decision | Help translate the approved use into the engineering scope | Named approvers and acceptance criteria |
| Data access and permitted use | Authorize sources, users and permitted data use | Implement scoped access controls and interfaces | Source permissions, retention and support-access boundary |
| Architecture and deployment | Approve security, IT/OT and hosting constraints | Design and implement the agreed components | Infrastructure owner, permitted services and data flows |
| Validation evidence | Supply expert review and make the acceptance decision | Produce the evaluation work and evidence included in scope | Test coverage, thresholds, limitations and review roles |
| Updates and operation | Assign an accountable operating owner | Perform only the operation or update work included in the agreement | Patching, refresh, monitoring, backups and change review |
| Incidents and support | Retain the internal escalation and operational decision route | Provide the contracted support contribution, if included | Hours, escalation contacts, response arrangements and exclusions |
| Deliverables and third-party rights | Review intended use and transfer requirements | Identify scoped deliverables and relevant dependencies | Ownership, model and software licences, and permitted reuse |
Understand the assurance boundary
Risk and industrial-security guidance can help structure the review. NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework addresses AI risk management, and its operational-technology guidance addresses OT security considerations. These references do not certify NeoBram or a particular deployment.
The appropriate client owners retain security, quality, regulatory and production acceptance authority. Requirements must be checked against the actual intended use, architecture and operating procedures.
Start without sending sensitive records
Tell us what the workflow does, which environment it must run in and what information or actions are restricted. A non-confidential summary is enough to begin.
Agree a suitable channel and access permissions before sharing documents or controlled records. Do not send passwords or access tokens in an enquiry. If system access is needed, your authorized IT owner should arrange the approved access method.
More clarity
Questions and answers
Does offline deployment guarantee security?
No. Identity, permissions, updates, physical access and operating procedures still need review.
Who owns updates after handover?
That is agreed per component and recorded before work begins, together with the support and escalation arrangements.
Can a read-only assistant also change production records?
Read access does not authorize a write or external action. Every proposed action needs its own defined permission, approval rule and engineering review.
Does private hosting mean information never leaves the network?
That depends on the complete architecture, including application services, model calls, telemetry, logs, backups, updates and support access. The approved data-flow design must establish the actual boundary.
Start with one business problem