• If the runtime has no public egress, “accidental export” becomes much harder.
• If the model endpoint is region-locked and accessed privately, you reduce exposure.
• If all AI traffic passes through a gateway, you can apply consistent policy controls.

How to verify (success criteria)

• A reference architecture diagram exists and is approved by Security/Compliance.
• You can demonstrate:
• No public internet egress from AI workloads (except explicitly approved)
• Model endpoints are in approved regions
• All AI calls go through the AI gateway (no direct-to-model bypass)

What to avoid (pitfalls)

• “Shadow endpoints” where teams call public APIs from laptops or CI pipelines
• Mixing environments (dev/test/prod) without clear data boundaries
• Assuming a vendor’s “EU region” automatically prevents cross-border transfers (check subprocessors, support access, telemetry)

---

Step 3 — Implement controls: identity, encryption, DLP, and retention

What to do (action)

Treat Private AI like any other sensitive production system—then add AI-specific controls.

A. Identity & access (least privilege):

• Integrate with SSO (SAML/OIDC)
• Use RBAC/ABAC to control:
• Which users can access which use cases
• Which data sources can be retrieved (RAG)
• Which models are available (e.g., “restricted model” for regulated workflows)

B. Encryption & key management:

• Encrypt at rest for:
• Document store
• Vector database
• Prompt/response stores (if you keep them)
• Use customer-managed keys (CMK) where possible
• Rotate keys on a defined schedule

C. DLP and prompt safety controls:

• Implement DLP scanning at the gateway:
• Detect PII/PHI/PCI patterns
• Detect secrets (API keys, tokens)
• Block or redact based on classification

Example: basic secret scanning before sending to model

import re

SECRET_PATTERNS = [
    r"AKIA[0-9A-Z]{16}",              # AWS access key id
    r"-----BEGIN (RSA|EC) PRIVATE KEY-----",
    r"xox[baprs]-[0-9A-Za-z-]{10,}", # Slack tokens
]

def contains_secrets(text: str) -> bool:
    return any(re.search(p, text) for p in SECRET_PATTERNS)

# In your gateway:
if contains_secrets(prompt):
    raise ValueError("Blocked: prompt contains suspected secrets")

D. Logging, retention, and minimization:

• Decide what you log:
• Metadata-only logs (recommended by default)
• Full prompt/response logs (only when justified)
• Apply retention windows (e.g., 7–30 days) and legal holds where required
• Ensure logs stay in-region and in approved systems

Warning: If you store prompts/outputs, you are creating a new sensitive dataset. Treat it as a system of record with access reviews, retention, and breach response.

E. RAG-specific access controls:

• Enforce document-level permissions at retrieval time
• Prevent “over-retrieval” (limit top-k, restrict sources by role)
• Maintain an allow-list of indexed repositories

Why it matters (context)

Most AI risk is operational, not theoretical:

• A single user can paste a customer export into a chat.
• A vector index can silently expand to include restricted content.
• Logs can become the largest data exfiltration channel.

Controls reduce the probability and blast radius of mistakes.

How to verify (success criteria)

• Quarterly (or monthly) access reviews exist for AI systems and data sources.
• DLP tests show restricted data is blocked/redacted.
• Retention policies are enforced automatically (not “manual cleanup”).
• RAG retrieval honors existing permissions (verified with negative tests).

What to avoid (pitfalls)

• Logging everything “for debugging” and forgetting to turn it off
• Embeddings stored without classification or encryption
• Using shared service accounts instead of user-level identity

---

Step 4 — Prove it: auditability, testing, and continuous compliance

What to do (action)

Build a lightweight but defensible assurance program.

A. Create an “AI Sovereignty Control Checklist” Include:

• Data residency and processing locations
• Subprocessor list and support access model
• Encryption, key ownership, and rotation
• Egress restrictions and private connectivity
• Logging/retention policy and evidence
• Incident response steps for AI systems

B. Run sovereignty-focused tests (pre-prod and recurring):

• Egress test: confirm AI workloads cannot reach public endpoints
• DLP test: attempt to submit known PII/PHI/PCI strings
• RAG permission test: ensure restricted docs are not retrievable by unauthorized roles
• Prompt injection test: attempt instructions that request secrets or policy bypass

Example: verify no public egress from a pod

# From a debug pod in the AI namespace
kubectl run -n ai nettest --rm -it --image=curlimages/curl -- sh

# Should fail (blocked)
curl -I https://api.openai.com

# Should succeed (allowed internal endpoint)
curl -I https://llm.internal.corp/health

C. Establish monitoring and alerts:

• Alert on:
• Unusual prompt volume
• Repeated DLP blocks (signals misuse or training need)
• Retrieval from unexpected repositories
• Any attempt to call non-allow-listed endpoints

D. Document evidence for auditors:

• Architecture diagram + data flow map
• Policy configs (gateway, egress rules, retention)
• Access review logs
• Test results and remediation tickets

Why it matters (context)

“Trust us” doesn’t work for sovereignty. You need repeatable evidence that:

• Data stays where it should
• Access is controlled
• Violations are detected and corrected

Continuous compliance prevents drift as new use cases, data sources, and models are added.

How to verify (success criteria)

• You can produce an evidence pack in < 1 day.
• Tests are automated and run on a schedule (or at least per release).
• Incidents have a clear playbook (who does what, when).

What to avoid (pitfalls)

• One-time assessments that aren’t repeated after model or data changes
• Relying on vendor attestations without your own technical controls
• Ignoring “metadata leakage” (user IDs, document IDs, usage patterns)

---

Common mistakes (and how to fix them)

• Mistake: Focusing only on model hosting
• Fix: Include prompts, outputs, embeddings, and logs in your sovereignty scope.
• Mistake: Allowing public internet egress “temporarily”
• Fix: Default-deny egress; use explicit allow-lists and private endpoints.
• Mistake: Indexing everything for RAG
• Fix: Start with an allow-list of repositories and enforce document-level permissions.
• Mistake: Keeping full transcripts forever
• Fix: Adopt minimization: metadata-only logs by default, short retention, legal holds when needed.
• Mistake: No owner for the AI gateway and policies
• Fix: Assign a platform owner and change-management process (PR approvals, versioned configs).
• Mistake: Treating redaction as a silver bullet
• Fix: Use redaction as defense-in-depth, not as permission to export sensitive workflows.

---

Next steps: Operationalize and scale safely

Once your first Private AI use case is running with sovereignty controls, scale with discipline:

• Expand use cases using the same gateway, logging, and policy baseline
• Add a formal intake process:
• Data classification + flow map required
• Threat model required for new data sources
• Go-live checklist required
• Invest in enablement:
• User training on what not to paste into AI tools
• Clear guidance on approved tools and workflows

Your immediate 7-day plan:

• Day 1–2: Draft the Sovereignty Requirements Brief + map one use case
• Day 3–4: Stand up the AI gateway + lock down egress
• Day 5: Implement DLP + retention defaults
• Day 6–7: Run verification tests and produce an evidence pack

Conclusion: Take control without slowing innovation

Private AI and data sovereignty are compatible—if you treat them as an operating model, not a procurement checkbox. Classify AI data flows, choose an architecture that prevents accidental export, implement identity/DLP/retention controls, and continuously prove compliance with tests and evidence.

If you do those four steps, you’ll move faster with AI while keeping regulators, customers, and your security team confident that sensitive data stays under your control.