use case — AI without leakage.
The customer pattern is consistent across regulated industries: the board has mandated AI productivity gains, the CISO has a no-leakage red line, the Chief AI Officer needs per-event evidence, and the regulator has Articles 11/13/14 (EU AI Act) or sector-specific equivalents (FINRA Reg Notice 24-09, FDA AI/ML SaMD, MAS Veritas, FCA DP5/22) on the immediate horizon. The reconciliation is permissions-aware AI on regulated content — not generic AI on everything.
Talk to a solutions engineer · Read the permissions-aware AI pillar
team profile.
| Dimension | Profile |
|---|---|
| Vertical | Regulated — financial services, healthcare + life sciences, public sector, legal, energy, manufacturing, AEC |
| Buying centre | Board sponsorship + CISO + Chief AI Officer + Chief Compliance Officer + CIO |
| Trigger event | Board AI mandate + first regulator inquiry on AI use + first proven leakage incident in industry peer |
| Decision timeline | 6-12 months |
| Procurement | Per-cluster pricing; multi-year commit common |
the customer's named pains.
|---|---|---| | | "Every AI vendor says they respect permissions. Most cannot prove it." | CISO | | | "Hallucinated AI is the brand-risk we cannot accept." | Chief AI Officer | | | "Regulator will ask me to explain every flagged event." | Trade Surveillance Lead | | | "Cannot deploy clinical AI without evidence of what data it saw." | CMIO |
TeamSync's answer.
1. Permissions-aware AI as a platform property.
DocuTalk and Agentic AI Workflow derive retrieval scope from the user's RBAC + ABAC at every request. Per-vendor policy is replaced by per-platform enforcement.
2. Per-AI-event evidence card.
Every AI request emits the structured evidence card (model + prompt + retrieved chunks + reasoning trace + outcome). The CISO sees what the AI saw; the Chief AI Officer maps each card field to the policy control; the regulator inspects from the same record.
3. Cryptographic audit on AI activity.
Every AI event anchored in the Merkle audit ledger. Forensic answer to "what did the AI see, when, for whom" is cryptographic.
4. EU AI Act + FDA SaMD + sector documentation generated.
For high-risk AI use cases, TeamSync generates the regulator-required documentation pack continuously rather than as a project.
5. Customer content not used for training.
Customer corpus stays in the customer tenancy; models call the corpus at inference. Contractual + architectural guarantee.
Buying-cycle pattern.
- Initial brief: CIO / Chief AI Officer brief on the AI mandate; TeamSync framed as the regulated-content + AI platform alongside M365 Copilot for productivity.
- CISO red line: deep dive on permissions-aware AI architecture, per-event evidence card, cryptographic audit, customer-content-not-training.
- Vertical use case: scope starting point — surveillance (FSI), clinical (HLS), surveillance / FOIA (Public), eDiscovery (Legal), MoC (Energy), shop-floor (Manufacturing), jobsite (AEC).
- Pilot: 60-90 days on the starting use case with measurable per-event evidence + audit + permissions enforcement.
- Scale: cluster commit + extension into adjacent vertical use cases.
Coexistence narrative.
TeamSync is the regulated-content + AI platform. M365 Copilot continues for productivity content. Vertical AI tools (where deployed) coexist via integration. The starting point is per-event evidence + cryptographic audit + permissions-aware AI on regulated content.
CTAs.
| Role | Action |
|---|---|
| CISO | Read the CISO page |
| Chief AI Officer | Read the chief AI officer page |
| CCO | Read the CCO page |
| CIO | Talk to a solutions engineer |