An AI incident response workflow should stop further harmful actions, preserve what happened and assign a person to direct correction. The incident may originate in a model, stale source data, an integration or a permission rule. Recovery requires checking the affected business records, not simply rerunning the automation.
Define incidents by their business effect
Distinguish an incorrect internal draft caught during review from an unauthorized customer message, duplicate appointment or changed financial record. Record the workflow, run identifier, time, source reference, model or rule version and observed effect. Classify severity according to consequence, scope and reversibility. An incident log should preserve enough evidence to investigate without becoming an unrestricted copy of customer or employee data. AI can suggest a classification, but the accountable incident owner confirms priority and escalation.
Contain the affected action promptly
Pause the specific workflow or permission that could repeat the problem. A stale estimate may require holding outbound proposals while read-only investigation continues. Duplicate scheduling writes may require stopping that integration and reconciling appointments. Identify the person authorized to take operational control and the manual fallback for necessary work. Containment should be clear and bounded, with its scope and time recorded. Avoid an automatic retry when the first request’s result is unknown and repeating it could send another message or create another commitment.
Preserve the chain before correcting records
Keep the original output, relevant source version, approval event, attempted action and destination result. Separate what the system requested from what actually occurred. A timeout can leave uncertainty about whether an external service applied the change. Inspect the destination before deciding the next step. Document affected customers, jobs or records and protect sensitive evidence. The NIST AI Risk Management Framework provides broader voluntary guidance for managing AI risks; the business still needs its own assigned incident procedures and action authority.
Apply a reviewed correction and test recovery
Prepare a bounded correction with the intended result and required approver. A technical operator may repair an integration without having authority to refund money, revise payroll or communicate a contractual commitment. Preserve both original and corrected records with their relationship. Then compare source and destination, verifying the resulting appointment, message status or financial entry. Test the repaired workflow against the failure case and related duplicate or stale-input scenarios. A successful tool response alone does not establish that the business effect has been repaired.
Close with ownership and follow-up
Record containment, approved correction or non-correction, customer communication where required, recovery evidence and the decision to resume. Assign prevention work such as stricter source validation, reduced permissions or improved duplicate protection. Track repeated incidents, time to containment, unresolved destination states and review failures. Rehearse one representative incident before live expansion so operators know how to pause the system and find its evidence. The aim is to limit repeated harm and restore a trustworthy workflow without erasing the history needed to learn from it.
Keep building your understanding
Start with one useful workflow.
Tell us what happens today and where it gets stuck. We’ll help define a practical next step.