Pilot owners
You want to observe a new agent use case during controlled testing without enabling automatic blocking.
Test whether available agent and system records provide enough visibility for useful governance. The initial pilot names the supported agents, endpoints, logs, review schedule, and gaps before monitoring begins.
A fit for Portland and Maine organizations running one or a few bounded agents and seeking a practical view of activity, findings, logging quality, and governance workload.
You want to observe a new agent use case during controlled testing without enabling automatic blocking.
You need to learn which agent actions are visible, how noisy findings are, and what review process is sustainable.
You want to prioritize local evidence handling and limited data movement where the selected systems permit it.
The initial pilot uses one scheduled human review each week for a 30-day window, plus an end-of-pilot briefing. It does not include continuous human observation.
The signed scope lists every included agent, endpoint, host, integration, and log source. Anything not listed is out of scope.
Useful monitoring depends on available records, stable integrations, sufficient retention, time synchronization, and permission to review the evidence.
The pilot records or analyzes supported activity. It does not deny commands, alter configurations, revoke credentials, or install enforcement rules.
Weekly review groups findings by relevance and severity, notes apparent false positives, and identifies questions for the agent owner.
The engagement defines who receives material findings and through which agreed channel. It is not an emergency response or guaranteed alerting service.
Review the baseline, use case, owners, data sensitivity, available records, retention, and rollback path before any monitoring configuration is proposed.
Document what is recorded, where it stays, who can view it, what is redacted, and how collection can be stopped.
Conduct one scheduled review per week, classify material observations, document limitations, and route questions to the named human owner.
At day 30, assess coverage, workload, signal quality, privacy impact, and whether to stop, refine, or separately scope a longer engagement.
Agent access remains limited to the approved business task, and human approval stays required for consequential actions. Monitoring reviewers receive only the evidence access needed for their role; findings do not authorize automatic enforcement or remediation.
No. The initial offer is a limited pilot with a weekly human review during the agreed pilot window. It is not a security operations center, real-time response service, or guarantee that every event will be detected.
The statement of work names each supported agent, endpoint, integration, log source, and known gap. Coverage depends on the records and interfaces actually available for the selected environment.
No. Monitor-only logging observes supported activity and produces records or findings; it does not block agent actions. Enforcement requires a separate risk review, test plan, and explicit approval.
Start with one bounded use case and a small, named set of supported agents and endpoints.