AI pilot data residency · subprocessor review · production approval
A board-friendly FAQ for teams deciding whether an AI pilot can move toward production when data location, subprocessors, training-use settings, retention, deletion and cross-border questions are still being clarified.
Use the evidence checklistMap security answersReview board risk
This is a buyer-education readiness asset only. It is not a real customer case study, audit, certification, compliance proof, privacy proof, security proof, legal advice, data-transfer advice, vendor approval, subprocessor attestation, ranking evidence, demand evidence, lead, customer or revenue evidence. No outreach was sent.
Ask where every data path runs: application hosting, model/API processing, retrieval store, logs, analytics, backups, support access and exported reports. The answer should cite settings, architecture notes or provider evidence, not only a generic “cloud-hosted” statement.
An AI workflow often includes model providers, cloud platforms, vector databases, monitoring tools, helpdesk systems and analytics services. If the subprocessor chain is unclear, boards and customer-risk teams cannot judge data movement, vendor dependency or approval boundaries.
It needs a dated source: provider setting, enterprise-plan term, DPA/addendum clause or approved security-questionnaire answer that covers prompts, uploads, outputs, embeddings, logs and human-review paths for the exact pilot environment.
Restrict the pilot when the team has promising value but unresolved data-location, training-use, deletion, retention or subprocessor questions. Restriction can mean internal-only use, redacted data, smaller user group, no public claims and a dated adviser-owner queue.
AICS helps teams turn scattered vendor, architecture and owner evidence into a board-readable checklist, risk-register row, security-answer source map and go/no-go decision record. This page does not claim AICS has produced a client result for this exact review.