Someone in the business is pasting customer data into a free assistant. Someone else connected a vendor tool to a production data source because the integration was one click. Neither went through review, and neither shows up in any system you monitor.
This is not a failure of policy — most organisations have one. It is that the tools are trivially easy to adopt and invisible once adopted, so the first time security learns about them is usually during an incident.
Discovery surveys surface what people are actually using, which is consistently a mix of tools worth sanctioning and a few worth stopping.
What each AI system touches — personal data, customer data, special category — so exposure is assessed per system rather than assumed uniform.
Whether each system can actually be stopped quickly. It is among the first questions asked after an incident, and among the least likely to have an answer.
Which third parties sit behind which systems, so a vendor compromise turns into a scoped list rather than a week of discovery.
Time to answer when something happens. If a vendor discloses a breach, the question is which of your systems depend on them and what data those systems touch — and whether that takes ten minutes or three days.
CXO Ready is an aid, not an assurance. It helps you structure your thinking, record what you have done and see where the gaps are. It does not make you compliant, and nothing it produces is legal advice or a regulatory opinion. Scores are indicative. Responsibility for compliance stays with your organisation, and decisions with legal consequences should be taken with a qualified adviser.
Before you start
No. It is a system of record for governance, not an agent watching traffic. Shadow AI is surfaced through structured surveys rather than network detection, which finds tools that never touch a corporate network — the free assistant on a personal browser being the common case.
It covers the AI-specific layer your existing controls were not designed for: per-system data exposure, model kill-switches, AI vendor dependency, and the governance evidence that increasingly appears in customer security questionnaires. Evidence exports feed the GRC process you already run.
Data leaving the organisation through prompts, prompt injection in systems that act on untrusted input, over-permissioned integrations connecting AI tools to production data, and vendor dependency where the model is outside your control. All four are recorded against systems rather than treated as a general category of concern.
UK data residency, row-level security, encryption at rest and in transit, and optional multi-factor authentication, on infrastructure carrying SOC 2 and ISO 27001. We do not currently hold our own certification at application level — that is on the roadmap, and we would rather say so than imply otherwise.
More in the full FAQ, or ask us directly.