The speed of AI adoption is exposing the next governance gap

Download the report

Search keyword
Request Demo
Talk to Sales
Search keyword
Request Demo
Talk to Sales

On-demand webinar coming soon...

On-demand webinar coming soon...

On-demand webinar coming soon...

On-demand webinar coming soon...

Governing AI at Runtime

An AI Governance Implementation Field Guide

Move from approval-time governance to a repeatable operating model.

This manual is for enterprise architects, IT and AI platform teams, MLOps, AI engineering, and governance professionals responsible for architecting, operating, or assuring AI across cloud platforms, SaaS services, and custom environments.

Get the Full Guide

On-demand webinar coming soon...

From Approval-Time Governance to Production Control

Approval is one recorded state, not the finish line.

Models are updated. Prompts and instructions evolve. Data access changes. Agents gain tools. Vendors enable new AI capabilities inside software the business already uses.

The system that was reviewed can drift away from the system in production.

Runtime Governance connects discovered AI assets and runtime signals to ownership, risk, policy, workflow, remediation, and evidence. The objective is not to replace the systems that run AI. It is to make governance actionable across them.

mint green block with black open quote

“The models will keep changing. The control layer should not."

Blake Brannon
CIO, OneTrust

Three Questions for Governing AI in Production

What AI is running?

Maintain a current inventory of AI systems, agents, models, datasets, use cases, and third-party dependencies across cloud platforms, SaaS services, and custom applications. Connect each asset to its purpose, owner, relationships, lifecycle, and risk context.

Is it within policy?

Connect runtime and configuration signals to risk context, policies, thresholds, and accountable workflows. Governance begins when a technical signal becomes a decision: does it violate a policy, who owns the response, and what action is required?

Can we prove it?

Validate required protections, route violations, apply guided or automated remediation where supported, re-evaluate the system, and retain evidence of the outcome. This preserves brand trust and supports regulatory compliance.

A Live System Does Not Stand Still

Traditional governance still matters. The weakness appears when the approved state is treated as permanent while the production environment keeps changing.

  • A model version or retrieval source can change
  • An agent can gain a tool or data connection
  • A vendor can alter an embedded AI capability
  • A new business team can use the same capability for a different purpose

Observability is necessary, but it is not governance. Telemetry becomes a governance decision only when it is linked to policy, ownership, action, and evidence.

How Runtime Governance Connects Across Your Stack

Connect policy to the right objects

Runtime governance starts with a linked AI inventory, not a flat list. Treat Project, AI System, AI Agent, Model, Dataset, and Vendor or Third Party as distinct objects with relationships between them. An AI Agent should have its own record when autonomy, orchestration, or tool use requires independent oversight.

Build that inventory from more than one path, including intake and assessment, existing records, supported platform discovery, model registries, and custom integrations where needed. This connects policy to AI that is already running, not only to projects that entered through a governance request.

Connect runtime signals to policy

Runtime governance evaluates several signal categories: asset and configuration changes such as a new model, agent, model version, tool binding, or guardrail state; evaluation metrics such as faithfulness, correctness, relevance, harmfulness, or task adherence; operational metrics such as usage, invocation count, token consumption, latency, and reliability; sensitive-data signals from prompts, outputs, logs, or application flows; and agent behavior, including tools invoked, model bindings, actions taken, operating instructions, and autonomy.

Policy is the translation layer. It determines what a signal means, whether it crosses an approved threshold, and what should happen next.

Apply proportionate controls

Not every event requires the same response. Runtime governance can progress from record and route, where a violation is logged and assigned for human review, to guided enforcement, where the policy, affected asset, recommended action, and responsible owner are identified, to automated control, where a supported technical control is applied when the trigger is clear, well tested, and low ambiguity.

Start with visibility and guided action. Automate only when ownership, rollback, platform support, and the policy condition are understood.

Make ownership explicit

Before the first violation occurs, the operating model should define five decision rights, or governance workflows: who owns the policy, who approves the threshold, who receives the alert, who can apply the technical change, and who verifies that the system has returned to an approved state.

Produce defensible evidence

Every governance loop should retain a connected record of the AI asset and accountable owner, applicable policy, triggering signal and threshold, detection time, assigned workflow, action taken, approval or exception, and result after re-evaluation. That is what turns runtime governance into defensible operating evidence rather than another monitoring dashboard.

Download the Full Guide

Please fill in all the required fields

FAQs

Test the governance loop, not just the integration. Confirm that a new model or agent maps to the right record, a policy condition evaluates correctly, a threshold crossing reaches the right owner, and remediation is recorded. Test rollback, re-evaluation, exceptions, and what happens when synchronization fails. The full guide includes a UAT sequence and go-live checklist.

Set thresholds by use case, risk appetite, model behavior, and the cost of false positives and false negatives. A score acceptable for an internal assistant may be inappropriate for a customer-facing or consequential use case. Show the factors behind a risk score and preserve mandatory escalation for conditions that should not be averaged away.

Record an agent’s tools, resources, and model bindings as part of its inventory. When a binding changes, evaluate whether the agent still operates within its approved scope and whether the change affects downstream dependencies. Route findings to an accountable owner and retain the policy decision and outcome as evidence.