Sample consultancy report
Northwind Retail: Endpoint & Workload Security
Where AI has moved into this function, whether the controls kept up, and the one move that earns the next rung. Read in five minutes; decided in one meeting.
- Prepared on
- The aisecurityskills function diagnostic
- Basis
- Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) AI Controls Matrix (AICM) · AI Security Maturity Model (AISMM) × AI Cyber Maturity Model (AI-CMM)
- Evidence state
- Illustrative · fictional organisation
- Issued
- 18 Jul 2026
The verdict
Autonomy is pressing the gate: EDR investigation and UEM policy already run augmented while named supervision of AI-driven endpoint actions still trails.
Northwind Retail's endpoint and workload security function reads at L2.7 governance against L2.2 autonomy: a mid-band retail posture where the gate is already under pressure. Endpoint standards, inventory, central management, and alert triage on a defined process are in place. What presses the gate is the climb on EDR investigation and UEM policy while malware-and-tamper protection stays partial and named accountability for AI-driven endpoint actions remains only partial. Governance must finish those rungs before autonomy claims another step.
Governance
L2.7
AI Security Maturity Model (AISMM) · how well it is secured
Autonomy
L2.2
AI Cyber Maturity Model (AI-CMM) · how far AI has gone
The gate
Shut
autonomy is running ahead of its controls
Where this function stands
The whole method in one drawing. Governance runs across, autonomy runs up, and the staircase is the gate: each governance level earned is the autonomy an organisation may responsibly claim.
What was measured
Two ladders, one instrument. Each answer maps to a Cloud Security Alliance AI Controls Matrix (AICM) control; a category claims a level only when that tier is evidenced, and an absent control caps it. The same rule scores every live run.
How well it is secured
L2.7
The CSA AI Security Maturity Model (AISMM): every answer maps to an AI Controls Matrix (AICM) control, and a level is claimed only when the tier is evidenced.
How far AI has gone
L2.2
The AI Cyber Maturity Model (AI-CMM): where the human sits in each workflow — in, on, then over the loop. our model · calibrated to SAE J3016.
Held below the next tier: tier 3 not yet evidenced
Findings
Three, ranked, classified by what leadership does with each: act on a priority, protect a strength, and hold a deliberate choice.
- 01Priority
Named supervision and tamper protection trail the autonomy already claimed
EDR investigation and UEM policy run augmented, yet malware-and-tamper protection on AI-reaching endpoints is only partial, and named accountability for AI-driven endpoint actions is still partial. That is the pressure on the gate: autonomy has moved ahead of the Capable evidence Governance still needs.
The exact control ids (for your security and governance, risk and compliance team)
UEM-09 · GRC-15 · LOG-05
- 02Strength
Endpoint standards, inventory, and managed enforcement reach Defined
A written endpoint-and-workload standard covers AI reach, every such asset is known, central management enforces security settings, and security events are watched with triage on a defined process. Engineers are trained on safe AI use. That floor is what the mid-band read rests on.
The exact control ids (for your security and governance, risk and compliance team)
UEM-01 · UEM-04 · UEM-05 · LOG-03 · HRS-15
- 03By design
Mobile compliance stays manual while EDR climbs
Mobile compliance is held at Manual and workload baseline plus posture remediation stay assisted on purpose. That restraint keeps the composite adopt average from closing the gate while named supervision and tamper protection catch up.
The exact control ids (for your security and governance, risk and compliance team)
UEM-05 · UEM-09 · HRS-15
The climb
Direction, not a how-to: the next rung, and the governance that must move before autonomy does.
- Next quarter
Name accountable supervision for AI-driven endpoint actions and close the malware-and-tamper partial so Governance and Infrastructure can evidence Capable together.
- Two quarters
With named supervision evidenced, lift posture remediation one autonomy rung and re-assess: the gate stays open only if governance moved first.
- Continuous
Hold endpoint inventory and alert triage through each fleet and AI-reach change; re-run the diagnostic before lifting mobile compliance off Manual.
About this instrument
What a reader should carry out of the room: how the diagnostic works, how progress is tracked, and what the practice is for.
One questionnaire, two reads
Every answer maps to a Cloud Security Alliance AI Controls Matrix (AICM) control. Read one way, the answers grade the function: governance versus autonomy, joined by the gate. Read the other way, the same answers name the skills each person in the function must acquire. Diagnosis and reskilling from one sitting.
Tracked, not judged
The first run is a baseline, never a verdict. Re-assess after the work and the radar overlays the previous run, so leadership sees movement, not a grade. The compatible-standard packs (ISO/IEC, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the CSA AI Consensus Assessments Initiative Questionnaire) are lenses on the same answers: assess once, report many ways.
Direction, not a solution
AI is a moving target, so the report names the next rung and the governance that must move first — never a vendor stack or a how-to. The gate keeps the climb honest: autonomy is claimed only after the controls that catch it are in place.