Approve AI on regulated content without inheriting the audit risk.
Your board wants AI productivity. Your CISO red line is non-negotiable: no AI that returns content the user shouldn't see, no AI that can't show its work, no AI that can't be audited. TeamSync lets you say yes to both.
Talk to a security solutions engineer · Read how permissions-aware AI works · Trust Center
What you have to be able to prove.
When the regulator, the audit committee, or the board asks the question, your answer needs to be cryptographic, not anecdotal:
- What did the AI see? Every retrieval, scoped to the requesting user's permissions.
- Why did it answer that? A reasoning trace and a citation, exportable per request.
- Who approved it? A human checkpoint, anchored.
- Can someone tamper with the record? A Merkle hash chain that breaks visibly if they do.
TeamSync produces these answers as platform properties, not customer-built overlays.
How TeamSync handles the AI question.
Permissions, evaluated per request — not per deployment.
Every AI copilot in TeamSync — natural-language Q&A, retrieval, agentic workflows — calls the same access-control engine that governs the documents themselves. The model never sees what the user is not authorised to see. There is no separate "AI policy" because there is no separate AI permission model.
A per-event evidence card you can hand to a regulator.
Every AI request emits a structured record: model version, prompt, retrieved chunks, reasoning trace, output, human-checkpoint outcome, timestamp, anchored hash. Exportable. Replayable. The card is what the EU AI Act Articles 11–14 reviewer asks for, what FINRA Reg Notice 24-09 contemplates, what FDA SaMD documentation expects.
Customer content is never used to train models.
Your corpus stays in your tenancy. Models call the corpus at inference. There is no second use. This is contractual and architectural — not a marketing line.
The audit ledger is cryptographic.
A Merkle hash chain anchors every event — document creation, access, modification, AI request, key rotation. Each per-day root is cross-attested across regions and witness nodes. Tamper attempts break the chain at root verification. Standard append-only logs ask you to trust your DBAs; this doesn't.
Crypto-shred for individual rights.
Right-to-erasure under GDPR Article 17 is engineered, not promised. Per-data-subject envelope encryption means destroying the key destroys access — across primary storage, replicas, and backups whose retention windows would otherwise outlive the deletion request.
What changes for the security organisation.
| Before | After |
|---|---|
| Per-vendor AI policy reviews stacking up in security backlog | One platform, one policy, one set of evidence |
| "We trust the vendor's permissions claim" as the only answer to AI scope | Cryptographic per-request evidence |
| Audit log integrity assumed via append-only design | Audit log integrity proven cryptographically |
| GDPR Article 17 deletion confidence dependent on backup retention windows | Crypto-shred eliminates the window |
| AI deployment blocked at the CISO red line | AI deployment cleared at the CISO red line |
Where TeamSync fits in your stack.
TeamSync coexists with the systems already in production. You keep Microsoft 365 + Purview for productivity content and its Copilot. You keep your IdP (Microsoft Entra, Okta, Ping). You keep your SIEM. TeamSync becomes the regulated-content + AI platform underneath — the layer where audit, permissions, and AI-on-content evidence converge.
| Layer | TeamSync role |
|---|---|
| Identity | Federates with your IdP via SAML / OIDC / SCIM |
| Endpoint + network security | Unchanged |
| Productivity content | Stays in M365 / Workspace; TeamSync federates |
| Regulated content of record | TeamSync platform |
| AI on regulated content | TeamSync's permissions-aware AI |
| Audit | Merkle ledger anchors regulated events |
| SIEM / observability | TeamSync emits the standard signals |
Compliance frameworks served.
Articles 11, 13, 14 of the EU AI Act for high-risk systems. NIST AI Risk Management Framework. FINRA Reg Notice 24-09 on AI in surveillance. FDA AI/ML SaMD framework for clinical AI. MAS Veritas. OCC SR 11-7 model-risk-management heritage. SOC 2 Type II. ISO/IEC 27001:2022. HIPAA + HITECH. GDPR Article 17.
See all 12 compliance overlays →
Talk to us.
| If you are… | Do this |
|---|---|
| Evaluating whether AI on regulated content is approvable | Talk to a security solutions engineer |
| Reading on the CIO's behalf | Read the CIO page |
| Coordinating with the Chief AI Officer | Read the Chief AI Officer page |
| Coordinating with the Compliance Officer | Read the CCO page |
| Looking for the SOC 2 / ISO 27001 reports | Trust Center |