Triage a sensitive-data submission to AI
First distinguish an attempted AI submission from data that reached the service. Preserve the evidence needed to make that distinction without asking the employee to repeat the upload or spread sensitive information into another system.
For Security operations, IT support and incident coordinators
An employee reports an unexpected upload
A team member believes a spreadsheet with internal records reached an assistant. They saw a security message but are unsure whether it appeared before or after the file was submitted.
What you are working with
- The approximate time, assistant, account and device used.
- The original file location and a description of its sensitive categories.
- The message shown and any existing provider or control evidence.
A safer approach
- Stop further submissions through the uncertain route.
- Preserve existing evidence in the approved incident record.
- Have the incident owner assess transmission and the appropriate response.
Expected outcome: The case is recorded with a clear known-versus-unknown status and reaches the people authorized to assess exposure and response obligations.
Work through the procedure
Stabilize the workflow without repeating it
Ask the user to stop related uploads and explain what happened in their own words. Record the time and submission path. Do not reproduce the event with the real document. If a demonstration is necessary later, use synthetic content under the incident owner's direction.
Establish what the evidence actually shows
Review available endpoint, application and provider records with authorized administrators. Distinguish a warning, a completed block and a confirmed upload. If evidence is incomplete, mark transmission as unknown. A screenshot of a policy message alone may not settle what the service received.
Assess the information through its owner
Ask the data owner to classify the content and identify affected business records. Record a minimized description rather than copying the entire file into a ticket. Escalate possible credentials or other urgent exposure through the organization's existing security response procedure.
Hand off containment and record the outcome
Give the incident coordinator the timeline, evidence sources, data description and unresolved questions. Provider deletion or access changes require the relevant administrator's review. Follow the established incident process for assessments and notifications; do not promise that deleting a conversation reverses transmission.
What to check before proceeding
1. Transmission status is evidence-based
- Ready when
- The record distinguishes prevented, transmitted and unknown outcomes with supporting sources.
- If the check fails
- Keep the status uncertain and assign the missing verification.
2. Evidence is retained with limited access
- Ready when
- Only necessary material is stored in the approved incident location.
- If the check fails
- Restrict the record and replace unnecessary copies with references where appropriate.
3. An incident owner accepts the handoff
- Ready when
- A responsible person owns containment, assessment and follow-up.
- If the check fails
- Escalate through the established response channel rather than closing the support ticket.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Describing every DLP event as a confirmed breach before establishing whether information left the endpoint.
- Asking the employee to paste the sensitive prompt into an unrestricted chat so more people can investigate.
Evaluate this workflow with Aona
Where Aona can help
For supported workflows, Aona's policy events and configured controls may help explain the attempted action and observed response. Review them alongside the actual deployment and other available evidence.
What to confirm
Aona does not determine legal notification obligations or erase information from a third-party provider. A control event alone should not be presented as proof of receipt, deletion or complete incident containment.
Turning this policy into an operational rollout?
Discuss the teams, devices and AI tools in scope, who will own the policy, and which deployment and evidence requirements need to be met before rollout.