Sample consultancy report
Northwind Retail: Security Operations
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: triage and enrichment already run augmented while measured response and tested playbooks still trail.
Northwind Retail's security operations function reads at L2.8 governance against L2.2 autonomy: a mid-band retail posture where the gate still holds, but the margin is thinner than it looks. Logging and incident-response foundations are written and running; model integrity and threat-intel detections are in place. What presses the gate is the climb already underway on alert triage and enrichment while MTTR tracking, AI-scenario exercises, and response metrics remain only partial. Governance must finish those measured rungs before autonomy claims another step.
Governance
L2.8
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
L2.8
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 4 not yet evidenced
Held below the next tier: tier 4 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
Measured response trails the autonomy already claimed on triage
Alert triage and enrichment run augmented, yet monitoring MTTR, AI-scenario tabletops, and incident-response metrics stay partial. That is the pressure on the gate: autonomy has moved ahead of the measured evidence the Capable rung requires.
The exact control ids (for your security and governance, risk and compliance team)
LOG-05 · SEF-04 · SEF-05
- 02Strength
Monitoring and IR foundations are written and running
Logging policy, AI-event monitoring, tamper-protected retention, and an IR policy that names AI failure modes are implemented. Model-artifact scanning and adversarial analysis sit underneath that floor. The mid-band read is earned here.
The exact control ids (for your security and governance, risk and compliance team)
LOG-01 · LOG-03 · LOG-02 · SEF-01 · SEF-03
- 03By design
Model defence stays Defined while triage climbs
Artifact scanning, adversarial analysis, and threat-intel detection updates are implemented and held at Defined on purpose. Documentation stays manual and investigation assisted so the composite adopt average does not close the gate while measured IR evidence catches up.
The exact control ids (for your security and governance, risk and compliance team)
MDS-02 · MDS-06 · TVM-05
The climb
Direction, not a how-to: the next rung, and the governance that must move before autonomy does.
- Next quarter
Close the three partials: track alert MTTR, exercise AI incident scenarios, and publish IR metrics so Capable evidence matches the autonomy triage already runs.
- Two quarters
With measured response evidenced, lift investigation one autonomy rung and re-assess: the gate stays open only if governance moved first.
- Continuous
Hold model-integrity scanning and threat-intel detection updates through each catalog change; re-run the diagnostic after material SOC tooling shifts.
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.