26/09 edition: switch AI supplier with an exit dossier

The new answer is only one part of switching

An SME wants to change the supplier of an assistant that reads dossiers and prepares proposals. The new service produces a good demonstration answer. The team still needs to know whether it can move permitted material, reconstruct references and retain the same action boundaries.

Our proposed decision does not compare models through a general ranking. It asks whether this specific service can move without losing control of its dependencies. The dossier should let someone uninvolved in the sale understand what migrates, what remains behind and who owns each gap.

The basis is governance, not an assumed entitlement

NIST GOVERN 6.1 addresses third-party risks. OWASP LLM06 recommends downstream authorisation. The AI RMF is voluntary. Our dossier proposal does not turn these references into an export obligation, contractual portability or an exit entitlement for every service.

Data: exporting is not reconstructing

We propose inventorying source documents, passages, references, configuration and records needed for continuity. For each item, request a written answer about available format, use conditions, retention and deletion. Where third-party rights or contractual uncertainties arise, the competent owner should resolve them before transferring material.

Run a trial with synthetic or previously authorised documents. At the destination, reconstruct an answer whose reference an authorised person can open. An export containing files but losing the passage-to-document link fails our criterion. We do not assume vectors or configuration can be reused without adaptation.

Tools: carry the boundary, not the credential

Our plan records each permitted operation, identity, destination and approval decision. Real credentials do not belong in the demonstration package. The team should create test access at the destination and show that an out-of-scope operation is refused regardless of the generated answer.

Hypothetical scenario: the current assistant only prepares a draft, but the destination integration also permits sending it. Equivalent answers do not make the configurations equivalent. Testing must distinguish preparation, human confirmation and sending; expanded authority should be decided separately or removed from the design.

The dossier that decides the switch

The original matrix requires artefacts, not sales promises. An unowned gap keeps the affected scope on hold. Procurement documents conditions; engineering demonstrates reconstruction; the service owner accepts the workflow. These trials are not product benchmarks or supplier certifications.

Exit and return need a concrete condition

Before switching, we propose stating how to suspend new tasks, recover the queue and reconcile work begun during transition. Define which evidence triggers return to the previous workflow and who decides. Keeping an old subscription is not proof that the return path remains functional.

For the Portuguese SME, the final dossier should include contractual answers approved by competent owners, an inventory with limits and the trial report. The conclusion may be to move only consultation while keeping tools on the existing path. This avoids calling a partial transfer a global success. We assert no legal obligations, internal experience or comparative advantages; this is an untested decision plan.