Define what the workflow is meant to achieve
Record the type of finding, the business context and the outcome the team needs. Identify the systems and information involved. Establish who owns the process and who can authorise changes to it.
Separate the current workflow from a proposed future version. The review should show where evidence comes from today, which people act on it and which decisions remain manual. If the current state is uncertain, mark that uncertainty before describing how an AI feature might fit.
Do not infer service coverage from the tools listed. A configured product, a staffed operating responsibility and a contractual monitoring or response commitment are different things. Record the actual scope and confirm any service questions separately.
Follow the evidence from detection to investigation
For the selected finding, identify what information reaches the reviewer, where it comes from and which access is required to inspect it. Ask the team to show the authorised evidence they would use to understand the event, with sensitive details handled in the appropriate environment.
Record any gaps between the detection and the investigation. A summary may be convenient but still leave the reviewer without the context needed for a decision. Identify who can obtain missing evidence and what happens while the question remains unresolved.
The review should also distinguish source information from interpretation. If an AI assistant produces a summary or suggested next step, the reviewer needs a way to examine the supporting evidence relevant to that task. Agree how that check fits into the existing process.
Locate the human authority to act
The person investigating a finding may not have authority to isolate a device, change an identity or approve another operational action. Document the approval required for each action considered in scope.
Name the decision owner, the information they need and the route for escalation. Establish what happens if that person is unavailable. Keep any actual coverage limitations visible so the process does not imply a response commitment that has never been agreed.
Identify who can pause the proposed automation or return to the agreed manual process. A useful approval rule should be specific enough for the team to apply during an actual finding, including when the evidence is incomplete or the recommendation is challenged.
Evaluate the AI role against a defined task
Microsoft describes Security Copilot as an AI assistant for security professionals, with support for tasks such as investigation, threat hunting and posture management through supported integrations. That product description provides context for evaluating a use case; it does not establish your environment’s configuration, coverage or operating results. Microsoft Security Copilot overview.
Choose the proposed AI task precisely. Preparing a summary for review is a different operating role from initiating a change. Identify the relevant licence, capacity, permissions, integration and configuration requirements for that task before proposing implementation.
Microsoft’s workflow guidance distinguishes administrator, end-user and developer responsibilities. Use the relevant product guidance to inform the technical discussion, then assign the actual business and operational owners for your scope. Microsoft Security Copilot in your workflows.
Agree what a useful output should contain, what the reviewer must verify and how an unsuitable result is handled. Keep evaluation examples within the authorised scope. Do not use unapproved customer or production information merely because it makes a demonstration more convincing.
Review the handoffs and the closure record
Walk the selected finding through every change of responsibility. Identify the information passed between people, how an action is authorised and who confirms that the workflow can be closed. Record the decision, the evidence reference and the responsible person in the approved operational system.
Include the points where a finding may be returned for more investigation. A workflow rarely becomes clearer by assuming that each step always produces a complete answer. The team needs a route for uncertainty as well as a route for the expected result.
After a test or separately authorised implementation, decide who reviews the process again and which changes should trigger a new check. A different integration, data source, action permission or team responsibility may affect the original decision.
Turn the review into a small decision register
Use a working table with one entry per decision. Record the current evidence, the gap or proposed change, the person accountable and the next action. Distinguish items that block the selected use case from improvements that belong in another scope.
For an initial working session, bring the process owner, an investigator and the relevant technical owner together. Ask them to trace one example through the current process. Agree the missing evidence and approval questions before selecting the next piece of implementation work.
If an agent will participate in the workflow, include its purpose, access and lifecycle responsibilities in an agent ownership record. The operational workflow and the agent record should point to the same decision owners where their responsibilities overlap.
Use the five-question ownership checklist to record those responsibilities consistently.
Frequently asked questions
Does an advisory review provide ongoing monitoring?
The review examines a selected scope and produces findings and priorities. Any monitoring, operating hours, escalation coverage or incident-response commitment requires a separate service agreement. Confirm the actual responsibilities with the relevant service owners; the presence of a security tool does not establish that a staffed operating commitment exists.
Should AI be allowed to take the final action?
That depends on the action, evidence, authority and controls agreed for the specific use case. Define those requirements with the responsible owners before deciding whether implementation is appropriate. Record the approval point, information required and person who can pause the process so the operating decision is explicit and reviewable.
Can the review begin with one recurring type of finding?
Yes. A bounded workflow can make the evidence and responsibilities easier to examine. Agree the included finding type, systems, actions and people before beginning, and retain unresolved questions in the record. Interpret the findings within that scope rather than treating them as proof about every security workflow in the environment.
Does a product demonstration establish that the workflow is ready?
A demonstration can show a capability under its own conditions. Your decision still needs evidence about the relevant configuration, permissions, data, review steps and operational responsibilities. Use the demonstration to identify questions for the selected task, then validate those questions with the people authorised to make the implementation decision.
Make the next workflow decision explicit
Braintree’s scoped Microsoft security review can examine an agreed security workflow and the decisions around it. Scope, authorised evidence, outputs and commercial terms are agreed before the paid review begins.
SECURITY
Make the next decision clear.
Explore the related Braintree security services and resources.
