Enterprise buyers no longer ask only whether your AI feature works. They ask who tested it, what broke, how you fixed it, and what evidence they can keep in their risk file. A good answer is not a paragraph in a questionnaire. It is a scoped assessment, reproducible findings, a fix plan, and retest evidence.
This service packages Phixe’s AI assurance work around the procurement moment: when a deal, launch, or customer security review needs credible AI-specific evidence.
Who it is for
You are a founder, CTO, or security owner at an AI-native startup selling into a business customer. Your buyer has asked about AI security, model behavior, data handling, RAG, agent tools, prompt injection, tenant isolation, evals, or responsible AI controls. You need a report that answers those questions without pretending to certify that AI is “safe.”
This review is especially relevant when:
- A strategic deal depends on clearing security review.
- A security questionnaire asks for AI red-team or model-risk evidence.
- Your product uses RAG over customer data.
- Your AI agent can call tools or take actions.
- Your buyer wants to know how failures are detected, logged, and remediated.
- Your team has built fast and needs an independent view before the buyer finds the gaps.
What the review covers
Scope and system map
We document the AI surfaces in scope: model providers, prompts, retrieval sources, tools, agent workflows, data classes, tenant boundaries, environments, and systems explicitly out of scope. A buyer can only trust the report if the boundary is clear.
AI red-team evidence
We test prompt injection, jailbreaks, sensitive data disclosure, unsafe output, retrieval poisoning, tool misuse, and the failure modes relevant to your architecture. Findings include request traces and reproduction steps.
Evals and regression readiness
Where the product depends on behavior quality, we review or build a baseline for correctness, grounding, refusal behavior, hallucination, and regression risk. Procurement teams increasingly want evidence that model or prompt changes do not silently break critical behavior.
Production-readiness controls
We review auth, tenant isolation, secrets, logging, monitoring, rate and cost controls, incident reconstruction, and whether a security issue would be detected before a customer reports it.
Fix plan and retest
The report prioritizes fixes by risk and buyer impact. One retest pass verifies whether the confirmed fixes hold and records residual risk.
What you can give the buyer
You leave with a report shaped for buyer review:
- Executive summary with scope and residual risk.
- Findings by severity with business impact.
- Reproducible evidence for each confirmed issue.
- Framework mapping to OWASP LLM Top 10, OWASP Agentic Security Initiative, MITRE ATLAS, and NIST AI RMF where relevant.
- Fix plan and retest status.
- Honest limits: what was tested, what was not, and what remains a business decision.
See the sample AI assessment report for the report structure. For the buyer-side checklist behind that artifact, read what an AI security assessment report should include. For the questionnaire version of the same buyer evidence, read AI security questionnaire for AI products. If the buyer is using the word “pentest” for an AI-specific review, read AI penetration test vs AI red team before scope is agreed.
What this does not claim
This is not a legal compliance certification, SOC 2 audit, penetration-test replacement for your whole company, or a guarantee that the AI system is safe. It is evidence of the AI product surface we tested, the issues found, the fixes verified, and the residual risk you can disclose honestly.
That honesty is what makes the report useful in procurement. Buyers do not need a magic stamp. They need evidence they can evaluate.
Start with the right service
For most teams, this procurement-oriented review is the AI Product Readiness Assessment framed around a buyer deadline. If your risk is narrower, use the focused pages for LLM red teaming, RAG security, AI agent security, or MCP security. When the deadline is already active, scope the review around the buyer’s questionnaire, evidence request, and security-review date. If the buyer wants to verify Phixe before scope, send the public verification profile, trust page, methodology, and sample report.