{"slug":"business/42-security-faq","title":"42 — Security FAQ","section":"business","sectionLabel":"Business","status":"unclassified","type":"document","path":"business/42-security-faq.mdx","bytes":7296,"description":null,"updated":null,"source":"integratewise/Integratewise-docs-wiki","content":"\nStatus: CANONICAL · Commercial OS\nOwner: Founder (until security hire) — technical truth sourced from `docs/doctrine/` + `docs/spec/INTEGRATEWISE_CANONICAL_SPEC_v1.0.md`\nLast verified: 2026-07-21\n**Honesty rule:** this document never claims a certification or control we do not hold. Aspirational items carry explicit status. One overclaim in a security review ends the deal and the reference — accuracy outranks impressiveness.\n\n---\n\n## Purpose\n\nThe buyer-facing security answer set — delivered _proactively_ at POV kickoff (arriving prepared is the trust move) and used verbatim in security questionnaires.\n\n**Target audience:** Persona 4 (CISO/IT), P3 (RevOps evaluating), procurement.\n\n---\n\n## 1. Architecture (the five answers that matter most)\n\n**\"Where does our data live, and who can see it?\"**\nYour tenant's data is isolated with row-level security enforced at the database layer — tenant isolation is a database property, not an application promise. Data is encrypted in transit (TLS) and at rest. Cross-tenant access is structurally impossible through the application path; every request is identity-bound and tenant-scoped server-side. Client-supplied tenant/role claims are never authoritative.\n\n**\"Can the AI read everything in our tenant?\"**\nNo. AI participants receive _scoped projections_ for a declared purpose — never unrestricted tenant state. Every cross-boundary exchange carries an explicit context boundary: subject, source, target, scope, purpose, permissions, policy references, and expiry. No projection may contain credentials, raw secrets, hidden prompts, or another agent's private reasoning.\n\n**\"Can the AI write to our data or act in our systems?\"**\nNot directly — ever. Two mandatory human gates: (1) **memory**: AI proposes knowledge; a human approves; only then does it enter organizational memory (TruthLayer); (2) **action**: execution requires an approved proposal; a prepared plan is never treated as completed work, and an AI message is never treated as an approval. Both gates are architecture, not configuration — there is no admin toggle that removes them.\n\n**\"What happens when a check fails?\"**\nThe platform **fails closed.** When identity, tenant membership, policy, or boundary verification cannot complete, the request is rejected. A prompt cannot talk the system out of policy.\n\n**\"What's the audit story?\"**\nEvery proposal, approval, execution, sync, and memory promotion is logged with identity attribution and preserved provenance. Evidence, decisions, and authority are recorded separately — you can always answer _who knew what, who decided what, on what basis_. Audit records are tamper-evident and survive user offboarding.\n\n## 2. Data Handling\n\n| Question                    | Answer                                                                                                                                                                                         |\n| --------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Model training on our data? | **No.** Customer data is never used to train foundation models. No cross-tenant data use.                                                                                                      |\n| Which AI providers?         | Provider-agnostic by architecture; models are swappable by configuration. Enterprise agreements can pin/exclude providers. Truth and memory live in _your_ Spine — a model swap loses nothing. |\n| Connector credentials?      | OAuth-based; tokens stored encrypted; connectors read through governed pipelines — **no connector writes directly to canonical state.** Writebacks are governed operations requiring approval. |\n| Data export / offboarding?  | Full Spine export in open formats, anytime. On termination: 60-day retrieval window, then deletion with certification ([32 Licensing](../05-value-pricing/32-licensing-strategy.md)).          |\n| Sub-processors              | Cloud infrastructure (edge compute/storage), connector OAuth infrastructure, AI inference providers — current list supplied with the DPA.                                                      |\n| Data residency              | Multi-region edge infrastructure today; region-pinning on the Enterprise roadmap (**status: roadmap — do not sell as present**).                                                               |\n\n## 3. Compliance Status (dated honesty — update monthly)\n\n| Item                | Status (2026-07)                                                                                                                    |\n| ------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| SOC 2 Type I        | **In preparation** — controls program underway; target: post-seed funding milestone ([68](../12-corporate/68-fundraising-story.md)) |\n| SOC 2 Type II       | Follows Type I observation window                                                                                                   |\n| GDPR                | DPA available; data-subject workflows supported; EU residency pending region-pinning                                                |\n| Penetration testing | Scheduled with SOC 2 program; summary shareable under NDA when complete                                                             |\n| SSO/SAML, SCIM      | Enterprise tier — **status: roadmap-near**; verify current build before committing dates                                            |\n\n**Sales rule:** deals gated on certifications we lack are _nurture, not push_ ([33 Anti-ICP](../06-customers/33-ideal-customer-profile.md)). The honest sentence: \"Type I is in preparation with [target window]; here's our architecture packet meanwhile — most teams find the mandatory-approval design answers the risk question the certification approximates.\"\n\n## 4. The Shadow-AI Argument (offense, not defense)\n\nYour team already uses AI — surveys say ~80% adopted it, and most use it ungoverned, pasting account data into consumer chatbots with auto-written memory. IntegrateWise is the _governed alternative_: same capability class, inside your tenant, with scoped projections, approval gates, and audit. The security conversation isn't \"new risk?\" — it's \"replace unmanaged risk with governed capability.\"\n\n## 5. Incident Posture\n\nFail-closed architecture limits blast radius by construction; audit trail supports forensics; contractual breach-notification commitments in the DPA. Public incident-response statement template maintained in [65 Press Kit](../12-corporate/65-press-kit.md).\n\n**KPIs:** security-review pass rate; review cycle time (target < 2 weeks with proactive packet); questionnaire-answer reuse rate (target: 90% from this doc verbatim); zero overclaim incidents — permanent.\n\n---\n\n**Related:** [27 Governance Story](../04-product-marketing/27-governance-story.md) · [21 Platform Story](../04-product-marketing/21-platform-story.md) · [43 Procurement FAQ](43-procurement-faq.md) · [32 Licensing](../05-value-pricing/32-licensing-strategy.md)\n"}