Review more activity without handing over the decision.
Most companies have security policies. What they lack is the time to check every email, access request, and configuration change against them.
The problem
Why it is hard today
Policies live in documents. Activity lives in dozens of tools. The gap between the two is filled with manual reviews and spot checks.
Rule-based tools catch exact matches but miss context: the right attachment sent to the wrong recipient, or a permission that is fine for one role and risky for another.
Reviewers get more low-value alerts than they can read, so the ones that matter wait in the same queue.
Sounds familiar?
- Reviews happen after the fact, if at all
- Alert queues grow faster than the team can triage
- Policy exceptions approved in chat with no record
- People working around controls that interrupt them too often
How the workflow runs
From signal to next step
- 01 / NOTICEActivity observed
An email being written, an access request, or a configuration change enters the workflow.
- 02 / REASONChecked against policy
The agent compares it with your policies and its context, such as recipient, role, and data sensitivity, and explains what it found.
- 03 / ACTFlagged for review
Clear cases pass. Risky ones go to the user or a reviewer with the reason, and the decision is recorded.
Where people stay in control
Autonomous where it helps
- The agent does not grant access or change security settings on its own.
- Reviewers see why something was flagged, not only a score.
- Decisions and overrides are logged for audit.
- Sensitive data stays within the boundaries you define.
Typically connects to
- Email and Microsoft 365
- Identity and access management
- SIEM and log sources
- Ticketing and approval tools
- Your written policies
What you see
Evidence, not a black box
The workflow shows what it noticed, why it matters, and what it proposes, inside the tools your team already uses. Every step is recorded. We agree on the measures before launch and review them with your team.
- Reviewer agreement
- Share of flags reviewers agree were worth raising.
- Time to decision
- From flag to an approve, change, or block decision.
- Caught before
- Risky actions stopped before they happened, not after.
- Interruptions
- Prompts per user per week, kept low enough to be taken seriously.
What the sender sees: the check runs before the email leaves, explains what it found, and leaves the decision with them.
Before sendHi both, sending the September export as discussed. Let me know if anything is missing.
payroll_september.xlsx · 48 KBCheck before sending
- 1External recipientgmail.com is not an approved domain for finance data.
- 2Personal data in attachmentSalaries and national ID numbers for 42 employees.
Policy: data handling, section 3.2
Sending anyway needs a reason and is logged for security review.
Sender removed the external recipient · 15:14
- Emails checked this week
- 1,284
- Flagged
- 37
- Fixed by sender
- 34
- Sent to review
- 3
Is it a good fit?
Not every task needs an agent
Good starting point when
- Written policies exist, even if informal
- A reviewer owns the final decision
- Activity data is reachable by API or logs
Probably not yet when
- The policy itself is still undecided
- The only goal is to block, with no review step
- Nobody has time to act on the flags
Start with a conversation
Does this look like your operation?
Bring one process that costs your team time. We'll help you decide whether AI fits, what to build first, and how to connect it to what you already use.