Start with the decision the review must support
Write the decision in one sentence. For example, the team may need to decide whether a selected user group can move beyond a Copilot pilot, whether an agent should connect to another data location or whether a workflow is ready for a more active AI role. Treat these as different scopes with different evidence requirements.
Agree the business owner, technical owner and people who can authorise changes. Identify what would support a decision to proceed and what would require further investigation. A review that has no defined decision can accumulate findings without helping anyone set the order of work.
Understand the identity behind the use case
List the relevant user groups, administrative responsibilities and agent identities where applicable. Establish who can grant or change access and how the team reviews it. Check for differences between a test configuration and the intended operating environment.
For an agent, clarify which identity supports each connection or action. Do not assume that a business sponsor and a technical owner have the same authority. Bring the people responsible for those identities into the review, with access to the evidence they are authorised to share.
Keep licence and supported-feature questions alongside the configuration record. A product name on a purchase schedule does not explain which capability is available to the users or agents in the selected scope.
Microsoft’s security overview places Copilot in the context of existing Microsoft 365 identity and access controls. Validate the relevant requirements for your intended use case. Security for Microsoft Copilot.
Review information access before expanding use
Microsoft’s Copilot documentation says it surfaces organisational data that a user has permission to view. Existing access and sharing decisions therefore matter to the readiness conversation. They should be examined for the intended use case rather than assumed to be suitable because they predate the AI rollout. Microsoft data, privacy and security documentation.
Choose the data locations relevant to the task. Identify the owner, intended audience and sharing arrangements for each. Ask the responsible team to explain which access is required and which questions remain unresolved. Include external sharing or guest access where it is relevant to the agreed scope.
The review needs evidence of the current state. Keep a dated reference to the authorised configuration or access review instead of relying on an assumption about how a site, team or document library was originally set up.
Make information protection a working responsibility
Record how the selected information is classified, shared and handled in the business process. Identify the people who own policy decisions and those responsible for applying or checking the relevant configuration. If a policy exists, establish which part of the selected use case it actually covers.
Where labels, data-loss prevention or other Microsoft controls may be relevant, validate the licence, supported workload and configuration requirements before making a recommendation. The availability of a product feature does not show that a control is operating effectively in a particular environment.
Keep formal legal or compliance questions with the appropriate qualified owners. A technical readiness review can identify evidence gaps and control questions, but it should not quietly become a compliance certification or a guarantee about every use of information.
Decide what AI may do with the result
Separate a tool that helps someone prepare a draft from an agent allowed to take an operational action. Document the output, who reviews it and which decisions require explicit approval. The same data connection may support different risks when the role changes.
Record what happens if the available information is incomplete, a result appears inappropriate or someone wants to broaden the use case. Name the person who can decide whether to pause, investigate or revise the scope. A general expectation that people will be careful cannot replace that decision path.
For agent-specific responsibilities, use the ownership guide alongside the data and identity review.
The five-question ownership checklist provides a reusable record for the people making those decisions.
Build a prioritised record of the work
Bring findings into a short decision register. Each entry should identify the issue, the evidence reviewed, the business decision affected and the person responsible for the next action. Distinguish a confirmed gap from a question that needs more evidence.
Put the work in an order that the business and technical owners can explain. Some items may be dependencies for the chosen rollout. Others may belong in a separately scoped improvement programme. Avoid presenting every observation as equally urgent or assuming that a new licence is the answer before the existing controls are understood.
For the first working week, agree a manageable sequence: define the use case, identify the relevant identities and data, gather authorised evidence, review open questions with the owners and record the next decision. Set actual dates with the people doing the work. The sequence is a planning aid, not a promise about how long a review will take.
Frequently asked questions
Does buying a particular licence establish AI readiness?
Readiness depends on the use case, configuration, data and operating responsibilities as well as licensing. Check the specific requirements for the selected users, systems and actions. A licence can establish access to a capability under its terms; it does not establish that the relevant control has been configured or reviewed.
Can the review start with existing Microsoft tools?
Yes. Begin with the current environment and the decision it needs to support. Establish the evidence, configuration and responsibilities already in place before deciding what should change. Any recommendation for an additional capability should follow the agreed business requirement and the relevant product requirements, rather than assume a purchase is the answer.
Must the whole environment be assessed at once?
A defined user group, data area or business process can provide a useful starting scope. Agree the included systems, evidence and decision owners before beginning. Record the boundary and exclusions clearly so a decision about that scope is not mistaken for an assessment of the entire organisation or every AI use case.
Will an advisory review make changes to live access?
Any configuration or access change needs appropriate authorisation and an agreed implementation scope. A review establishes findings, evidence gaps and priorities before that work is decided. Keep the people with authority over the affected systems involved, and document the next decision separately from a general recommendation to improve a control.
Put the next AI decision on a clearer footing
Braintree’s scoped Microsoft security review can focus on the identity, data or workflow questions relevant to your priorities. The scope, evidence, outputs and commercial terms are agreed before the paid engagement begins.
SECURITY
Make the next decision clear.
Explore the related Braintree security services and resources.
