Held to the weakest of People, Process, Technology (L1, tier 2 not yet evidenced). Autonomy is ahead of governance — the gate flags it below. A self-assessment, never a measured or certified result.
The maturity radar
Self-assessed
Maturity · governance (AISMM · L1–L5) · this function
How well-governed Security Governance, Risk & Assurance is across the 12 AISMM categories, L1 hub to L5 rim. Measures 6 of 12; dashed spokes are outside scope, not zeros.
Autonomy · AI adoption (AI-CMM · L1–L4) · the org portfolio
How far AI adoption has advanced in each of the 8 security functions, Manual → Autonomous — the wider frame Security Governance, Risk & Assurance sits in. our model · calibrated to SAE J3016.
AI adoption (AI-CMM)
Levels1 Manual2 Assisted3 Augmented4 Autonomous
1 Identity Security
2 Network & Infrastructure Security
3 Endpoint & Workload Security
4 Application & DevSecAIOps Security
5 Data Security
6 Cloud & Container Security
7 Security Operations
8 Security Governance, Risk & Assurance
Two axes: governance maturity (AISMM, 5 levels) vs AI autonomy (AI-CMM, 4 levels, our authored ladder). Set targets below to see the dashed overlay. The autonomy lens is the org portfolio, self-assessed where a run exists, illustrative otherwise.
Govern · AISMM
L1.8
Repeatable · avg of 6 categories
Adopt · AI-CMM
L1.6
Assisted · our model · calibrated to SAE J3016, not a Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) standard
The gate
Autonomy ahead of governance
Coverage governs autonomy up to L1. Some steps run above that, close the govern gap or pull autonomy back.
Govern reads the AI Security Maturity Model (AISMM); Adopt reads the AI Cyber Maturity Model (AI-CMM).
FoundationInformation security: Not yet profiledCloud: Not yet profiledPrivacy: Not yet profiled
Capability · People · Process · Technology
The same control answers, read on the three dimensions a program is actually managed by (our lens over Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) control text). Capability is bounded by the weakest dimension, tooling alone can’t carry it.
PeopleAdministrative · evidence by document L1 Initial3 asked · capped: tier 2 not yet evidenced
TechnologyTechnical · evidence by instrument → L1 Initial3 asked · capped: tier 2 not yet evidenced
Capability, bounded by PeopleL1 Initial · tier 2 not yet evidenced
The lever names itself: weak People is fixed by training and champions; weak Process by runbooks and review cadences; weak Technology by vendor features, automation or fitted skills. The PPT grouping is our authored interpretation of the CSA control objectives.
Governance by category (AISMM)
Governance L4 Capable
3 implemented · 0 partial · 0 absent
What L4 looks like for Governance · the next rung
Where you are (L4 Capable): Central AI team has subject matter experts for current AI models/providers and responsibility and authority to set rules/baselines. Developer policies for AI usage in place with training. AI security control objectives for AI-supported development and applications in use, with initial automated tracking. AI safety policies established for different use cases. Cross-functional AI ethics/safety review process for high-risk use cases.
The next rung (L5 Efficient): Governance is monitored and managed using automated tooling (models/provider version compliance, guardrails coverage, agent/MCP registries). Defined process to update control objectives/specifications as AI providers and tools add/modify services and release new models. AI ethics review board in place with enforcement authority.
Verbatim from CSA AISMM v3.7; your level stays a provisional self-assessment.
What L2 looks like for App Security · the next rung
Where you are (L2 Repeatable): AI-specific application risks identified (prompt injection, insecure outputs). Initial input/output validation for AI components or some apps. Guardrails deployed for some high-risk applications. Basic API security for AI endpoints (authentication, rate limiting). Agent tool permissions defined but inconsistently enforced. MCP servers, if used, deployed without formal security review.
The next rung (L3 Defined): AI application security requirements documented. Input validation standards include prompt injection mitigations. Output filtering requirements defined for sensitive content. Guardrails deployed for critical AI applications but coverage incomplete. Initial agent security boundaries defined with tool access restrictions. MCP/A2A integrations undergo security review for new deployments. Initial AI-specific security testing.
Verbatim from CSA AISMM v3.7; your level stays a provisional self-assessment.
AI Supported Development and Supply Chain Security L2 Repeatable
What L2 looks like for AI Supported Development and Supply Chain Security · the next rung
Where you are (L2 Repeatable): AI coding assistant risks identified (code exposure to model providers, insecure code suggestions). Some approved AI coding tools identified but enforcement inconsistent. Initial documentation of AI components in use (models, AI libraries, services). Basic guidance on AI tool usage (e.g., "don't paste sensitive code into public AI chat"). AI libraries included in standard SCA scanning but no AI-specific checks.
The next rung (L3 Defined): Enterprise-managed AI coding assistant deployed (e.g., GitHub Copilot Business/Enterprise) configured to prevent code exposure to model training. AI coding tool usage tracked via enterprise licensing and administration. AI components included in existing SAST/SCA scanning processes. AI providers and major AI components documented in supply chain inventory. Open models require integrity verification (checksums, safe file formats) before use.
Verbatim from CSA AISMM v3.7; your level stays a provisional self-assessment.
What L1 looks like for Privacy, Compliance and Audit · the next rung
Where you are (L1 Initial): No AI-specific audit/compliance actions. AI deployments treated the same as any other application with no recognition of unique AI requirements. No tracking of AI model or training data licensing. No verification that AI deployments meet internal safety/ethics policies established in governance.
The next rung (L2 Repeatable): AI-specific compliance requirements identified (e.g., EU AI Act risk classifications, data privacy regulations, sector-specific AI rules). Assessment of AI deployments against internal policies performed when requested. Initial documentation of model and dataset licensing for some deployments. No systematic process to verify compliance with AI safety/ethics policies.
Verbatim from CSA AISMM v3.7; your level stays a provisional self-assessment.
What L1 looks like for Risk & Provider Assessment & Management · the next rung
Where you are (L1 Initial): No AI-specific risk assessment. AI providers and models selected by business units or individuals without security involvement. Existing general vendor assessment processes (if any) applied inconsistently to AI. No differentiation between AI services and other technology procurements. No registry of approved AI providers or models.
The next rung (L2 Repeatable): Security performs risk assessments for major AI providers and platforms when requested. Initial provider registry documents approved AI providers (may be informal, e.g., spreadsheet). Basic evaluation criteria established (e.g., data handling, SOC 2 compliance). Security engaged for some AI project risk assessments but not consistently. Initial broad data classification requirement set for all providers/models.
Verbatim from CSA AISMM v3.7; your level stays a provisional self-assessment.
What L1 looks like for Infrastructure Security and Resilience · the next rung
Where you are (L1 Initial): AI workloads run on general-purpose infrastructure with default security settings. No dedicated or isolated environments for AI training or serving. Network segmentation between AI and other workloads is absent. Hosting infrastructure for AI not differentiated in vulnerability management or monitoring.
The next rung (L2 Repeatable): Basic separation between AI development, training, and production environments (e.g., separate accounts/subscriptions or network segments). AI hosting infrastructure included in standard vulnerability management. Initial security configurations documented for AI compute and serving environments but inconsistently applied.
Verbatim from CSA AISMM v3.7; your level stays a provisional self-assessment.
Peer benchmark
Not enough peer data yet for Security Governance, Risk & Assurance — need at least 5 other orgs’ runs, currently 0. No comparison is shown below that floor; this is a real count, not a placeholder.
Autonomy by workflow step (AI-CMM)
Policy drafting L3 Augmented
Audit evidence L2 Assisted
Vendor risk L1 Manual
BCP exercise L1 Manual
People security review L1 Manual
Plays. Can this function run them at its current autonomy?
Each play names the controls it requires before running at an autonomy level, and the key performance indicator (KPI) it moves. Judged here at your current adopt level (L2) from this run’s answers, a control the diagnostic didn’t ask about reads not yet assessed, never assumed. Browse the full catalog →
Security-questionnaire & vendor-risk responseAI-secure the enterpriseKPI: Questionnaire turnaround ↓0/3 controls evidenced3 not yet assessed✓ no gaps found
Audit-evidence preparationAI-secure the enterpriseKPI: Evidence-collection time per audit ↓0/3 controls evidenced3 not yet assessed✓ no gaps found
Use cases: each play plotted on the grid
Use cases are the third placeable unit, alongside functions on /board and AI Controls Matrix (AICM) domains on the per-run card. v1 seeds one canonical use case per play in this function; your own concrete instances replace these as the measurement layer ships. Ungoverned dots (⚠) signal the gate caught autonomy ahead of maturity.
Autonomy × Maturity — each play in this function plotted as a use case
Maturity (AISMM) →
Mature autonomyUngoverned ⚠Over-controlledNot started
Security-questionnaire & vendor-risk responseAI-secure the enterpriseM2 · A2
Audit-evidence preparationAI-secure the enterpriseM2 · A2
Maturity from this run’s governance reading; autonomy capped at min(your function’s autonomy, the play’s catalog ceiling). All use cases are within the gate at the current reading. Real per-use-case grading arrives with the measurement layer.
Gaps register
The hard gaps to close, consolidated: every cell where autonomy outran the control’s maturity, the workflow steps running ahead of the gate, and the controls you marked absent. This is the diagnosis the action plan below is fitted to, not a coverage scoreboard.
cellAIS-01Is there an application security policy covering the AI-enabled apps your teams assure?autonomy L3 · governed to L2
cellAIS-04Is there a secure development lifecycle (SDLC) for AI-enabled applications?autonomy L3 · governed to L1
cellAIS-07Is application vulnerability remediation tracked to closure with metrics?autonomy L3 · governed to L1
cellTVM-01Is there a threat & vulnerability management policy covering AI components and their dependencies?autonomy L3 · governed to L2
cellTVM-03Are vulnerabilities in AI components and their supply chain identified?autonomy L3 · governed to L1
cellTVM-08Is remediation for AI-component vulnerabilities scheduled and tracked?autonomy L3 · governed to L1
stepPolicy draftingruns at L3 · governed only to L1
stepAudit evidenceruns at L2 · governed only to L1
AIS-07Is application vulnerability remediation tracked to closure with metrics?App Security · L4 control
TVM-03Are vulnerabilities in AI components and their supply chain identified?AI Supported Development and Supply Chain Security · L3 control
TVM-08Is remediation for AI-component vulnerabilities scheduled and tracked?AI Supported Development and Supply Chain Security · L4 control
AI analysis
Get a short, plain-language reading of this run’s levels: the one pattern worth naming and the single next step with the best payoff.
Takes about 30 seconds.
Ranked action plan: the fitted few
Targeted at your weakest capability dimensions. Each gets interventions of its own kind: weak People means training, never another tool; weak Process means runbooks and policies; weak Technology draws from vendor features, automation, and the curated core skill set, never the full library. Candidates from the play catalog; fit happens per ecosystem.
People · L1 → L2
Capped: tier 2 not yet evidenced.
Technology · L1 → L2
Capped: tier 2 not yet evidenced.
Core skills (curated set, the inventory is raw material)
Ai Vendor Privacy Due Diligence Art28 · Security-questionnaire & vendor-risk response
Collecting Evidence For A Privacy Compliance Audit · Audit-evidence preparation
Generating A Gdpr Article 30 Ropa From System Inventories · Audit-evidence preparation
Process · L3 → L4
Capped: AIS-07 absent.
ProcessAnswer-library curation cadence so AI drafts cite current, approved positions · Security-questionnaire & vendor-risk response
ProcessContinuous-evidence cadence replacing the pre-audit scramble · Audit-evidence preparation
Rollout: phased from your reading
Each AISMM category for Security Governance, Risk & Assurance is sequenced by its current level. Weakest categories land in Start now; the rest follow as Next and Later. Targets are capped at L5. This phasing is derived; re-assess to see it shift.
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
Infrastructure Security and Resilience
Move from L1 → L3. Blocker: tier 2 not yet evidenced.
Privacy and Compliance
Move from L1 → L3. Blocker: tier 2 not yet evidenced.
Risk & Provider Assessment & Management
Move from L1 → L3. Blocker: tier 2 not yet evidenced.
AI Supported Development and Supply Chain Security
Move from L2 → L4. Blocker: TVM-03 absent.
App Security
Move from L2 → L4. Blocker: tier 3 not yet evidenced.
Governance
Consolidate at L5 after the earlier phases.
Start now
Next
Later
Current
Target
Set your own targets
Pick where each category should land. The roadmap below sequences the gaps Foundational first, then Structural, then Procedural — CSA’s own domain ordering, not an invented dependency graph — and by gap size within a domain.
Governance
L4 nowL4
App Security
L2 nowL2
AI Supported Development and Supply Chain Security
L2 nowL2
Privacy and Compliance
L1 nowL1
Risk & Provider Assessment & Management
L1 nowL1
Infrastructure Security and Resilience
L1 nowL1
Independent assessment
A second, independent read of the same run — an auditor or a peer team answering the same controls. Saved separately; it never overwrites the self-reported track above.
Implement
Tick the prescribed skills as you fit and operate them. Re-assess to see the categories move.
Implemented 0/4
Progress
This is the first run for Initech · Security Governance, Risk & Assurance. Re-assess later to track movement here.
Roll-up to the board
This function owns these AICM domains on the board. Each board number is this reading’s evidence, nothing modelled — re-assess any function and its row moves. This is the second altitude: see the portfolio →
A&A L1 Initial
STA L1 Initial
BCR L1 Initial
GRC L4 Capable
HRS L4 Capable
Light read now, deeper read next
What you have here is the light, self-assessed read: fast, honest, and enough to see where autonomy has outrun governance. The deeper read is what turns it into proof.
This read (light)
Self-assessed against real control objectives
A headline posture and the gate verdict
The gaps register and the fitted few to close them
The next read (deep)
Each control verified against evidence, not self-report
Task-level before/after measured on the few skills adopted
The same motion run across functions to stand up the practice
Only the deep read earns the word measured; everything on this page is self-assessed until then.
Self-assessed and indicative, governance from AICM control coverage (AISMM), autonomy from the AI-CMM ladder (our model · calibrated to SAE J3016). Skill-to-objective fit is illustrative at this stage. Framework pins: CSA AICM v1.0.3, AI-CMM v1 (our construct), CSA AISMM, CSA AI-CAIQ v1.0.2.