Certified: The ISACA AAIR Audio Course

In this episode, we are going to look at what it really means to trust a third-party model, because trusting is easy and validating is the part that keeps people safe. Artificial Intelligence (A I) systems are increasingly delivered as services, embedded features, or packaged models, and for many organizations the fastest path to capability is to adopt something built elsewhere. That speed can be valuable, but it also creates a new kind of risk: you are relying on decisions you did not make, training data you did not curate, and engineering tradeoffs you did not witness. Validation is the discipline of turning a black box relationship into an evidence-based relationship, where you understand what the model can do, what it cannot do, and what conditions make it behave badly. The title focuses our attention on three concepts that beginners must learn to recognize quickly: assumptions, limits, and hidden dependencies. When you can identify these three, you can evaluate third-party models with clarity rather than optimism, and you can design safer use around what you discover.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

A good starting point is to understand why third-party validation is different from validating something you built yourself, because the difference is mostly about visibility and control. When you build a model internally, you often know what data sources were used, what cleaning and labeling decisions were made, and what testing was performed, even if those details are imperfect. With a third-party model, you may only see marketing claims and high-level documentation, while the real details are behind a vendor boundary. That does not automatically mean the model is unsafe, but it does mean you have to compensate for limited transparency with stronger validation around behavior and environment. Beginners sometimes assume that a well-known vendor name guarantees safe performance, but reputation is not evidence for your specific use case. A model that is excellent for general text generation can still be risky if your workflow involves sensitive data, regulated decisions, or high-impact recommendations. The key idea is that you are not validating the vendor’s intentions; you are validating how the model behaves in your context and under your constraints. When you treat third-party validation as context-specific, you start asking better questions and avoiding preventable surprises.

Assumptions are the first concept to make concrete, because models always assume something about the world, even when nobody says so explicitly. A model might assume the input is written in standard language, that users will ask questions in good faith, or that a certain kind of data will be present and correctly formatted. It might assume a certain domain, meaning it behaves as if it is answering general questions rather than organization-specific questions. It might assume that a human will verify important outputs, even if the product design encourages users to trust the system. A model might also assume that the environment is stable, meaning it was trained on patterns that no longer match current conditions. These assumptions matter because when they are violated, behavior can become unreliable or unsafe. Beginners often think assumptions are abstract, but they show up in practical ways, like the model making confident statements when context is missing or misinterpreting inputs that use jargon or non-standard phrasing. Validating assumptions means you identify what the model expects and then test what happens when reality differs. When you can name assumptions, you can also decide whether to change the workflow or choose a different model.

Another crucial assumption category is data handling, because third-party models often have built-in expectations about what data they will see and what data they are allowed to keep. Some services assume they can log prompts for debugging, which can be a privacy issue if your users include sensitive information. Some services assume they can use customer data to improve the model unless you explicitly opt out, which can create long-term leakage risk if private content influences future behavior. Some services assume the model will be used for low-risk drafting, yet organizations sometimes use the same service for high-stakes decision support, creating a mismatch between the model’s assumed role and the real role. Beginners sometimes treat these as contract details, but they are operational assumptions that influence risk every day. Validation here means you confirm what data is retained, what data is reused, and what controls exist to prevent your content from becoming part of someone else’s learning pipeline. It also means you test how the system behaves when given content that resembles sensitive data, because behavior matters as much as policy language. When assumptions about data handling are understood, you can design minimization and access controls that reduce exposure.

Limits are the second concept, and they are often the most honest part of a model if you can get them stated clearly. A limit is a boundary where the model’s performance drops, where safety protections weaken, or where the model’s outputs become unreliable. Limits can be about language and context, such as handling complex technical topics, ambiguous prompts, or multi-step reasoning tasks. Limits can be about domain specificity, such as whether the model understands your organization’s policies or whether it fills gaps with plausible but wrong content. Limits can also be about safety behavior, such as whether the model refuses unsafe requests consistently or whether it can be coaxed into harmful outputs through creative phrasing. Beginners sometimes believe that a model’s best performance reflects its normal performance, but limits show up in edge cases, stress cases, and adversarial cases, which are exactly the cases that drive incidents. Validating limits means you deliberately test boundary conditions rather than only testing friendly examples. When you know the limits, you can keep the model inside safe use cases and build safeguards for the places where it is weak.

A practical way to think about limits is to connect them to consequences, because limits matter more when the harm from being wrong is high. If a model is used for casual drafting, a moderate level of factual error might be manageable with human review. If a model is used for guidance about security controls, privacy requirements, or incident response decisions, a similar error rate can become unacceptable because the cost of a bad recommendation is much higher. Limits also matter because the model may not signal them honestly; it may sound confident even when it is at the edge of its competence. This is why validation should include tests that check whether the model appropriately expresses uncertainty or whether it fabricates details when it does not know. Beginners should learn that a model’s confidence is not a reliable indicator of correctness, especially in unfamiliar domains. A useful validation approach is to test the model on tasks that resemble your real workflow and to observe both accuracy and failure style. A model that fails safely by admitting uncertainty can be easier to control than a model that fails by confidently guessing. Understanding limits is about predicting failure modes, not about expecting perfection.

Hidden dependencies are the third concept, and they are often where third-party models create the most surprising risk. A hidden dependency is something the model or service relies on that you might not realize you are depending on, such as another vendor, a content source, a safety filter provider, an update pipeline, or a geographic processing location. Hidden dependencies matter because they can change without your direct control, and those changes can ripple into your system’s behavior. For example, a service may route requests through different components depending on load, which can affect latency, output consistency, or even which safety rules are applied. A service may update the model frequently, which can change behavior without a clear version boundary, making your validation evidence stale quickly. Another hidden dependency can be a retrieval layer that pulls information from sources you did not explicitly approve, which can introduce privacy and integrity risks. Beginners sometimes assume the model is a single thing, but many services are a stack of components, and stack changes can cause drift. Validating hidden dependencies means discovering what the service relies on and designing monitoring and governance to detect when those dependencies shift.

Hidden dependencies also include operational dependencies, which are the conditions that must remain true for safe use. One operational dependency is availability, because if your workflow depends on the model and the service becomes unavailable, users may seek uncontrolled alternatives, creating shadow risk. Another is security posture, because if the vendor’s incident response is slow or their logging is overly permissive, your organization may struggle to meet its own obligations. Another dependency is identity and permission handling, because if the model is integrated into tools that retrieve documents, the model can become a backdoor if permissions are not enforced at the data layer. Beginners often think hidden dependencies are only technical, but they also include governance dependencies, like whether the vendor provides meaningful change notice and whether you can opt out of behavior changes. If you cannot control or even detect these dependencies, your risk posture becomes fragile, because you are reacting after problems appear rather than steering proactively. Validation therefore includes understanding operational behaviors like updates, incident communication, and data handling, not just output quality on a test set. When dependencies are made visible, you can decide what contingencies and safeguards are needed.

One of the most effective ways to validate a third-party model is to treat it as a system to be tested, not as a product to be trusted, which changes the kind of questions you ask. Instead of asking is it good, you ask what does it do reliably, where does it break, and what does it do when it is pushed. You test normal use cases that reflect how your users will interact, including the kinds of messy prompts, time pressure, and incomplete context that happen in real life. You also test stress cases that expose safety boundaries, like attempts to get unsafe advice, attempts to coax it into revealing sensitive details, and attempts to manipulate it through hidden instructions in provided content. Beginners sometimes worry that testing third-party behavior is unfair or redundant, but the purpose is not to judge the vendor; it is to protect your own users. A third-party model might behave acceptably in general and still be unsuitable for your workflow if your use case sits at the edge of its limits. Testing makes that visible early, before deployment creates real harm. When testing is tied to your actual risk profile, it becomes the strongest form of validation evidence.

Another important validation practice is to build a clear mapping between the model’s capabilities and the controls you will use to constrain it, because validation is not only about deciding yes or no. Sometimes the right decision is yes, but only under certain conditions, such as no sensitive data, limited retrieval scope, or human review for high-impact outputs. Sometimes the right decision is yes, but only for certain user roles, where advanced capabilities are restricted to trained users who understand verification. Sometimes the right decision is yes, but only with monitoring that detects drift and abuse patterns, because third-party services can change behavior. Beginners often think validation ends with selection, but in a mature program, validation informs guardrails and governance, shaping how the model is deployed and maintained. This is also where least privilege matters, because a model that is safe in a narrow use case can become unsafe when given broad access and broad action capabilities. A good validation outcome is a clear statement of allowed uses and prohibited uses, tied to evidence and enforceable controls. When validation produces operational boundaries, you are turning knowledge into safety.

It is also critical to validate how the third-party model handles data privacy and retention in practice, because policy statements are not always enough to predict risk. In many organizations, the biggest sensitive data exposure comes from everyday behavior, where users paste proprietary content or personal information into prompts because it feels convenient. If the service retains prompts, logs them, or uses them for improvement, that convenience can become a long-term risk. Validation should therefore include testing prompts that resemble sensitive content and confirming how the service behaves, including whether it echoes sensitive content in unexpected ways and whether it supports minimization-friendly workflows. It should also include understanding how transcripts are stored, who can access them, and how deletion works across logs and backups. Beginners sometimes assume deletion is a button that makes data disappear everywhere, but retention and deletion can be complex in distributed systems. A responsible approach is to assume that any stored prompt could become a liability and to minimize what is stored whenever possible. When privacy validation is strong, you reduce the chance that third-party convenience becomes a privacy incident later.

Ongoing validation matters because third-party models evolve, and this is where many organizations lose control without realizing it. A vendor may update the model to improve general performance, but that update can change refusal behavior, change how it handles sensitive topics, or change how it responds to adversarial inputs. That means the model you validated last month may not be the same model you are using today, even if the product name stayed the same. This is why monitoring and regression testing are part of third-party validation, not separate concerns. If you maintain a set of critical tests that reflect your most important safety and privacy requirements, you can rerun them after vendor changes or on a schedule to detect behavior shifts. Beginners sometimes believe that vendor updates always make systems safer, but updates can also introduce regressions relative to your use case. Ongoing validation turns vendor dependency into managed dependency by giving you early warning when behavior changes. It also supports decision-making about when to restrict use, when to pause rollout, or when to switch to fallback behaviors. Continuous validation is how you keep your evidence aligned with reality over time.

Hidden dependencies also require you to plan for resilience, because even the best validation cannot remove the fact that a third-party service can fail or change unexpectedly. Resilience planning includes knowing what your fallback is if the service becomes unavailable, unreliable, or unsafe, and knowing how quickly you can switch modes without causing chaos. It also includes knowing how you will respond when a vendor incident occurs, including how you will communicate internally and externally and what evidence you will request. Beginners sometimes assume vendor relationships are stable, but vendor changes, outages, and policy shifts are normal in modern service ecosystems. A mature validation posture includes asking how the vendor provides change notice, what support exists for incident handling, and how quickly issues are addressed. It also includes understanding subcontractors and sub-processors, because hidden dependencies can involve multiple layers beyond the vendor you signed with. When resilience is part of validation, you are less likely to be surprised by operational disruptions and more likely to contain harm quickly when something changes. This is where governance and vendor management become practical safety tools.

A final beginner misunderstanding to correct is the idea that third-party validation is mostly about paperwork, when in reality the most valuable part is behavioral evidence and clear boundaries. Documentation can be helpful, but it cannot replace seeing how the model behaves on your tasks, under your constraints, and under adversarial pressure. Validation should produce a clear understanding of assumptions the model makes, limits where it becomes unreliable or unsafe, and dependencies that can shift outside your control. Once those are clear, you can decide whether the model is appropriate, and if it is appropriate, you can decide how to deploy it safely through permissions, guardrails, monitoring, and incident readiness. This approach also protects your teams, because it reduces the chance that someone will be blamed for a failure that was predictable but not tested. Validation is not a guarantee that nothing will go wrong, but it is a guarantee that you will not be surprised by basic realities you could have discovered early. When you treat third-party models as systems to govern rather than products to consume, you build safer programs and more durable trust.

As we close, validating third-party models is about converting uncertainty into managed risk by making assumptions, limits, and hidden dependencies visible and actionable. Assumptions describe what the model expects about inputs, users, and data handling, and validation checks what happens when those expectations are violated. Limits describe where performance, safety, and reliability break down, and validation tests boundary conditions so you can keep the model inside safe use cases. Hidden dependencies describe the vendor stack and operational realities that can change behavior without your control, and validation requires monitoring, regression testing, and resilience planning so those changes do not become silent degradation. When you combine behavioral testing with privacy and data handling verification, you protect against leakage and misuse that often arise from everyday convenience. When you maintain ongoing validation, you keep your evidence aligned with the living reality of vendor updates. For brand-new learners, the key takeaway is that third-party does not mean hands-off; it means shared control, and shared control only stays safe when you validate continuously and enforce boundaries deliberately.