Why read this
Read this when the buyer has a Microsoft tenant and wants an implementation path that respects security, identity, operations, and exit requirements.
Keep the tenant and data boundary explicit
Document tenant, subscription, region, identity, network, logging, secrets, data sources, retention, and operator roles before a pilot. Azure capability does not automatically answer the buyer’s residency, privacy, or sector questions.
Evidence: NIST AI Risk Management Framework, FTC guidance on AI claims
Build a thin, observable slice
Start with one workflow and a small controlled set of sources. Monitor latency, quality, cost, access, safety, and human corrections. Keep the source material and output traceable so a reviewer can reproduce a result.
Evidence: NIST Generative AI Profile, CISA AI cybersecurity guidance
Plan change and exit
Define who approves model, prompt, retrieval, connector, and policy changes. Test rollback, provider substitution, export, deletion, and service failure before relying on the workflow.
Evidence: NIST AI Risk Management Framework, NIST Generative AI Profile
Questions for the buying team
- Which Microsoft tenant, region, identity, and data controls are required?
- How are prompts, models, connectors, and policy changes approved?
- Can the buyer export data, evidence, configuration, and workflow logic if the supplier changes?
Local evidence boundary: this guide organises questions and sources. It is not a legal, security, clinical, financial, procurement, or implementation approval.
Sources and further reading
- NIST AI Risk Management Framework standards guidance
- NIST Generative AI Profile standards guidance
- FTC guidance on AI claims standards guidance
- CISA AI cybersecurity guidance standards guidance