Topic starter
11/08/2026 3:11 pm
TL;DR: Generic SaaS security questionnaires do not test whether AI systems can reason over regulated data, call tools, and initiate actions on their own, which is why finance procurement needs a different lens, according to Akto. The decisive gap is assumption failure: review checkpoints and static permissions were built for non-autonomous software, not actors that can act on their conclusions mid-session.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Akto: “How to Build an AI Security RFP for Finance in 2026”.
Key questions
Q: What should finance teams do first when an AI vendor can act autonomously?
A: Start by classifying which actions are recommendation-only, approval-gated, monitored, or fully autonomous.
Q: Why do static permissions become riskier in AI-enabled enterprise environments?
A: Static permissions age poorly because they assume users and systems behave predictably, which is not true in dynamic application environments.
Q: How can security teams tell whether human-in-the-loop controls are working?
A: Look beyond completion rates and measure whether reviewers are consistently applying scrutiny under pressure.
Practitioner guidance
- Define autonomy tiers in the RFP Separate read-only, recommendation, approval-gated, monitored, and fully autonomous actions before vendor evaluation begins so responses can be scored against a real operating model.
- Require agent identity controls Ask vendors to show how agent-to-agent and agent-to-system calls are authenticated, rotated, scoped, and expired rather than relying on static credentials.
- Test reconstructable audit evidence Use one concrete scenario and require the vendor to reconstruct what triggered the action, what data it touched, and under what authority it acted.
Bottom line: Finance AI procurement fails when it assumes autonomous systems can be evaluated like static SaaS, because their authority changes the meaning of access and oversight.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
11/08/2026 3:26 pm
Autonomy-aware procurement is now an identity governance problem, not just a vendor review exercise. The article shows that finance buyers are no longer evaluating passive software but systems that can reason, select tools, and act on regulated data. That collapses the old separation between application security and access governance. The practitioner implication is that RFP design now becomes part of identity control design, because procurement determines what authority the system receives in production.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Gartner predicts that more than 40% of agentic AI projects will be cancelled by the end of 2027, citing rising costs, unclear value and insufficient risk controls.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What evidence should an AI RFP require for auditability in finance?
A: Require the vendor to reconstruct one specific agent action from start to finish, including the trigger, the data touched, and the authority used. Aggregate logs are not enough when regulators or internal audit need to understand why a particular action happened and who, or what, was allowed to perform it.
👉 Read our full editorial: AI security RFPs for finance need autonomy-aware controls