Question: What should an agentic AI RFP require?

Answer: It should define the business process and measurable outcome, system and data boundaries, agent and human roles, authority limits, identity and tool controls, model and supplier transparency, evaluation scenarios, telemetry, security, privacy, incident and recovery obligations, service ownership, cost reporting, portability, change control, and evidence-based acceptance criteria.

competitive-landscape trust-authority go-to-market demand-generation

Use with the canonical visible page, current corrections, official-reference scope, and stated evidence boundary.

Require vendors to distinguish existing capability from roadmap claims.

Tie every material requirement to a demonstration, document, test, trace, or contractual acceptance condition.

Preserve the buyer’s ability to replace models, tools, providers, or implementation partners.

Working planning and decision aid; not certification, legal advice, security approval, benchmark, or client-specific result.


Question: What is an AI governance evidence register?

Answer: It is a versioned index that links a requirement, objective, risk, or policy statement to its scope, owner, control, evidence artifact, storage location, test or review method, finding, exception, approval, and next review date. It supports inspection and change management; it does not itself establish legal compliance, certification, or control effectiveness.

Use with the canonical visible page, current corrections, official-reference scope, and stated evidence boundary.

Use one row per evidence assertion rather than one row per entire framework.

Record source version and reviewed date.

Link to the artifact and test result, not merely the policy that requires it.

Working planning and decision aid; not certification, legal advice, security approval, benchmark, or client-specific result.


Question: What should a source verification register contain?

Answer: For each claim, record the exact public wording, claim type, source URL and publisher, source authority, publication and review dates, supporting passage or summary, whether the source directly supports the claim, qualifications and conflicts, allowed use, reviewer, status, and a trigger for re-verification or correction.

google-ai-optimization-guide nist-airc eu-ai-act-overview omb-m25-21

Use with the canonical visible page, current corrections, official-reference scope, and stated evidence boundary.

Prefer primary sources for standards, laws, protocols, product behavior, and official statistics.

Separate source-derived facts from interpretation, inference, strategy, and company evidence.

Working planning and decision aid; not certification, legal advice, security approval, benchmark, or client-specific result.


Question: Why is MCP not a complete agentic control plane?

Answer: MCP standardizes communication between model applications and contextual servers. A control plane must additionally govern identity, authorization, tool policy, budgets, model routing, state, evaluation, human authority, telemetry, incidents, recovery, and change. MCP can carry some relevant interactions, but it does not make those organizational and architectural decisions.

Use with the canonical visible page, current corrections, official-reference scope, and stated evidence boundary.

Keep protocol and policy responsibilities separate.

Treat every MCP server as a dependency and trust boundary.

Do not infer safe execution from a successful protocol exchange.

Reviewed editorial synthesis; not client proof, a benchmark, legal advice, or a guarantee of technical or commercial outcomes.


Question: Why are standards not runtime controls?

Answer: A standard, framework, taxonomy, protocol, or policy source can define outcomes, requirements, risks, or interfaces. A runtime control is implemented behavior that permits, denies, limits, observes, escalates, recovers, or records an operation. The two should be traceable, but citing the source does not prove the control exists or works.

Use with the canonical visible page, current corrections, official-reference scope, and stated evidence boundary.

Translate each selected source statement into an owner, control, evidence artifact, and review method.

Test the control under representative and adversarial conditions.

Keep alignment, legal compliance, audit, certification, and system performance as separate conclusions.

Reviewed editorial synthesis; not client proof, a benchmark, legal advice, or a guarantee of technical or commercial outcomes.