Integrating Microsoft Foundry with OpenClaw: Step by Step Model Configuration
Step 1: Deploying Models on Microsoft Foundry Let us kick things off in the Azure portal. To get our OpenClaw agent thinking like a genius, we need to deploy our models in Microsoft Foundry. For this guide, we are going to focus on deploying gpt-5.2-codex on Microsoft Foundry with OpenClaw. Navigate to your AI Hub, head over to the model catalog, choose the model you wish to use with OpenClaw and hit deploy. Once your deployment is successful, head to the endpoints section. Important: Grab your Endpoint URL and your API Keys right now and save them in a secure note. We will need these exact values to connect OpenClaw in a few minutes. Step 2: Installing and Initializing OpenClaw Next up, we need to get OpenClaw running on your machine. Open up your terminal and run the official installation script: curl -fsSL https://openclaw.ai/install.sh | bash The wizard will walk you through a few prompts. Here is exactly how to answer them to link up with our Azure setup: First Page (Model Selection): Choose "Skip for now". Second Page (Provider): Select azure-openai-responses. Model Selection: Select gpt-5.2-codex , For now only the models listed (hosted on Microsoft Foundry) in the picture below are available to be used with OpenClaw. Follow the rest of the standard prompts to finish the initial setup. Step 3: Editing the OpenClaw Configuration File Now for the fun part. We need to manually configure OpenClaw to talk to Microsoft Foundry. Open your configuration file located at ~/.openclaw/openclaw.json in your favorite text editor. Replace the contents of the models and agents sections with the following code block: { "models": { "providers": { "azure-openai-responses": { "baseUrl": "https://<YOUR_RESOURCE_NAME>.openai.azure.com/openai/v1", "apiKey": "<YOUR_AZURE_OPENAI_API_KEY>", "api": "openai-responses", "authHeader": false, "headers": { "api-key": "<YOUR_AZURE_OPENAI_API_KEY>" }, "models": [ { "id": "gpt-5.2-codex", "name": "GPT-5.2-Codex (Azure)", "reasoning": true, "input": ["text", "image"], "cost": { "input": 0, "output": 0, "cacheRead": 0, "cacheWrite": 0 }, "contextWindow": 400000, "maxTokens": 16384, "compat": { "supportsStore": false } }, { "id": "gpt-5.2", "name": "GPT-5.2 (Azure)", "reasoning": false, "input": ["text", "image"], "cost": { "input": 0, "output": 0, "cacheRead": 0, "cacheWrite": 0 }, "contextWindow": 272000, "maxTokens": 16384, "compat": { "supportsStore": false } } ] } } }, "agents": { "defaults": { "model": { "primary": "azure-openai-responses/gpt-5.2-codex" }, "models": { "azure-openai-responses/gpt-5.2-codex": {} }, "workspace": "/home/<USERNAME>/.openclaw/workspace", "compaction": { "mode": "safeguard" }, "maxConcurrent": 4, "subagents": { "maxConcurrent": 8 } } } } You will notice a few placeholders in that JSON. Here is exactly what you need to swap out: Placeholder Variable What It Is Where to Find It <YOUR_RESOURCE_NAME> The unique name of your Azure OpenAI resource. Found in your Azure Portal under the Azure OpenAI resource overview. <YOUR_AZURE_OPENAI_API_KEY> The secret key required to authenticate your requests. Found in Microsoft Foundry under your project endpoints or Azure Portal keys section. <USERNAME> Your local computer's user profile name. Open your terminal and type whoami to find this. Step 4: Restart the Gateway After saving the configuration file, you must restart the OpenClaw gateway for the new Foundry settings to take effect. Run this simple command: openclaw gateway restart Configuration Notes & Deep Dive If you are curious about why we configured the JSON that way, here is a quick breakdown of the technical details. Authentication Differences Azure OpenAI uses the api-key HTTP header for authentication. This is entirely different from the standard OpenAI Authorization: Bearer header. Our configuration file addresses this in two ways: Setting "authHeader": false completely disables the default Bearer header. Adding "headers": { "api-key": "<key>" } forces OpenClaw to send the API key via Azure's native header format. Important Note: Your API key must appear in both the apiKey field AND the headers.api-key field within the JSON for this to work correctly. The Base URL Azure OpenAI's v1-compatible endpoint follows this specific format: https://<your_resource_name>.openai.azure.com/openai/v1 The beautiful thing about this v1 endpoint is that it is largely compatible with the standard OpenAI API and does not require you to manually pass an api-version query parameter. Model Compatibility Settings "compat": { "supportsStore": false } disables the store parameter since Azure OpenAI does not currently support it. "reasoning": true enables the thinking mode for GPT-5.2-Codex. This supports low, medium, high, and xhigh levels. "reasoning": false is set for GPT-5.2 because it is a standard, non-reasoning model. Model Specifications & Cost Tracking If you want OpenClaw to accurately track your token usage costs, you can update the cost fields from 0 to the current Azure pricing. Here are the specs and costs for the models we just deployed: Model Specifications Model Context Window Max Output Tokens Image Input Reasoning gpt-5.2-codex 400,000 tokens 16,384 tokens Yes Yes gpt-5.2 272,000 tokens 16,384 tokens Yes No Current Cost (Adjust in JSON) Model Input (per 1M tokens) Output (per 1M tokens) Cached Input (per 1M tokens) gpt-5.2-codex $1.75 $14.00 $0.175 gpt-5.2 $2.00 $8.00 $0.50 Conclusion: And there you have it! You have successfully bridged the gap between the enterprise-grade infrastructure of Microsoft Foundry and the local autonomy of OpenClaw. By following these steps, you are not just running a chatbot; you are running a sophisticated agent capable of reasoning, coding, and executing tasks with the full power of GPT-5.2-codex behind it. The combination of Azure's reliability and OpenClaw's flexibility opens up a world of possibilities. Whether you are building an automated devops assistant, a research agent, or just exploring the bleeding edge of AI, you now have a robust foundation to build upon. Now it is time to let your agent loose on some real tasks. Go forth, experiment with different system prompts, and see what you can build. If you run into any interesting edge cases or come up with a unique configuration, let me know in the comments below. Happy coding!How to Set Up Claude Code with Microsoft Foundry Models on macOS
Introduction Building with AI isn't just about picking a smart model. It is about where that model lives. I chose to route my Claude Code setup through Microsoft Foundry because I needed more than just a raw API. I wanted the reliability, compliance, and structured management that comes with Microsoft's ecosystem. When you are moving from a prototype to something real, having that level of infrastructure backing your calls makes a significant difference. The challenge is that Foundry is designed for enterprise cloud environments, while my daily development work happens locally on a MacBook. Getting the two to communicate seamlessly involved navigating a maze of shell configurations and environment variables that weren't immediately obvious. I wrote this guide to document the exact steps for bridging that gap. Here is how you can set up Claude Code to run locally on macOS while leveraging the stability of models deployed on Microsoft Foundry. Requirements Before we open the terminal, let's make sure you have the necessary accounts and environments ready. Since we are bridging a local CLI with an enterprise cloud setup, having these credentials handy now will save you time later. Azure Subscription with Microsoft Foundry Setup - This is the most critical piece. You need an active Azure subscription where the Microsoft Foundry environment is initialized. Ensure that you have deployed the Claude model you intend to use and that the deployment status is active. You will need the specific endpoint URL and the associated API keys from this deployment to configure the connection. An Anthropic User Account - Even though the compute is happening on Azure, the interface requires an Anthropic account. You will need this to authenticate your session and manage your user profile settings within the Claude Code ecosystem. Claude Code Client on macOS - We will be running the commands locally, so you need the Claude Code CLI installed on your MacBook. Step 1: Install Claude Code on macOS The recommended installation method is via Homebrew or Curl, which sets it up for terminal access ("OS level"). Option A: Homebrew (Recommended) brew install --cask claude-code Option B: Curl curl -fsSL https://claude.ai/install.sh | bash Verify Installation: Run claude --version. Step 2: Set Up Microsoft Foundry to deploy Claude model Navigate to your Microsoft Foundry portal, and find the Claude model catalog, and deploy the selected Claude model. [Microsoft Foundry > My Assets > Models + endpoints > + Deploy Model > Deploy Base model > Search for "Claude"] In your Model Deployment dashboard, go to the deployed Claude Models and get the "Endpoints and keys". Store it somewhere safe, because we will need them to configure Claude Code later on. Configure Environment Variables in MacOS terminal: Now we need to tell your local Claude Code client to route requests through Microsoft Foundry instead of the default Anthropic endpoints. This is handled by setting specific environment variables that act as a bridge between your local machine and your Azure resources. You could run these commands manually every time you open a terminal, but it is much more efficient to save them permanently in your shell profile. For most modern macOS users, this file is .zshrc. Open your terminal and add the following lines to your profile, making sure to replace the placeholder text with your actual Azure credentials: export CLAUDE_CODE_USE_FOUNDRY=1 export ANTHROPIC_FOUNDRY_API_KEY="your-azure-api-key" export ANTHROPIC_FOUNDRY_RESOURCE="your-resource-name" # Specify the deployment name for Opus export CLAUDE_CODE_MODEL="your-opus-deployment-name" Once you have added these variables, you need to reload your shell configuration for the changes to take effect. Run the source command below to update your current session, and then verify the setup by launching Claude: source ~/.zshrc claude If everything is configured correctly, the Claude CLI will initialize using your Microsoft Foundry deployment as the backend. Once you execute the claude command, the CLI will prompt you to choose an authentication method. Select Option 2 (Antrophic Console account) to proceed. This action triggers your default web browser and redirects you to the Claude Console. Simply sign in using your standard Anthropic account credentials. After you have successfully signed in, you will be presented with a permissions screen. Click the Authorize button to link your web session back to your local terminal. Return to your terminal window, and you should see a notification confirming that the login process is complete. Press Enter to finalize the setup. You are now fully connected. You can start using Claude Code locally, powered entirely by the model deployment running in your Microsoft Foundry environment. Conclusion Setting up this environment might seem like a heavy lift just to run a CLI tool, but the payoff is significant. You now have a workflow that combines the immediate feedback of local development with the security and infrastructure benefits of Microsoft Foundry. One of the most practical upgrades is the removal of standard usage caps. You are no longer limited to the 5-hour API call limits, which gives you the freedom to iterate, test, and debug for as long as your project requires without hitting a wall. By bridging your local macOS terminal to Azure, you are no longer just hitting an API endpoint. You are leveraging a managed, compliance-ready environment that scales with your needs. The best part is that now the configuration is locked in, you don't need to think about the plumbing again. You can focus entirely on coding, knowing that the reliability of an enterprise platform is running quietly in the background supporting every command.Building with Azure OpenAI Sora: A Complete Guide to AI Video Generation
In this comprehensive guide, we'll explore how to integrate both Sora 1 and Sora 2 models from Azure OpenAI Service into a production web application. We'll cover API integration, request body parameters, cost analysis, limitations, and the key differences between using Azure AI Foundry endpoints versus OpenAI's native API. Table of Contents Introduction to Sora Models Azure AI Foundry vs. OpenAI API Structure API Integration: Request Body Parameters Video Generation Modes Cost Analysis per Generation Technical Limitations & Constraints Resolution & Duration Support Implementation Best Practices Introduction to Sora Models Sora is OpenAI's groundbreaking text-to-video model that generates realistic videos from natural language descriptions. Azure AI Foundry provides access to two versions: Sora 1: The original model focused primarily on text-to-video generation with extensive resolution options (480p to 1080p) and flexible duration (1-20 seconds) Sora 2: The enhanced version with native audio generation, multiple generation modes (text-to-video, image-to-video, video-to-video remix), but more constrained resolution options (720p only in public preview) Azure AI Foundry vs. OpenAI API Structure Key Architectural Differences Sora 1 uses Azure's traditional deployment-based API structure: Endpoint Pattern: https://{resource-name}.openai.azure.com/openai/deployments/{deployment-name}/... Parameters: Uses Azure-specific naming like n_seconds, n_variants, separate width/height fields Job Management: Uses /jobs/{id} for status polling Content Download: Uses /video/generations/{generation_id}/content/video Sora 2 adapts OpenAI's v1 API format while still being hosted on Azure: Endpoint Pattern: https://{resource-name}.openai.azure.com/openai/deployments/{deployment-name}/videos Parameters: Uses OpenAI-style naming like seconds (string), size (combined dimension string like "1280x720") Job Management: Uses /videos/{video_id} for status polling Content Download: Uses /videos/{video_id}/content Why This Matters? This architectural difference requires conditional request formatting in your code: const isSora2 = deployment.toLowerCase().includes('sora-2'); if (isSora2) { requestBody = { model: deployment, prompt, size: `${width}x${height}`, // Combined format seconds: duration.toString(), // String type }; } else { requestBody = { model: deployment, prompt, height, // Separate dimensions width, n_seconds: duration.toString(), // Azure naming n_variants: variants, }; } API Integration: Request Body Parameters Sora 1 API Parameters Standard Text-to-Video Request: { "model": "sora-1", "prompt": "Wide shot of a child flying a red kite in a grassy park, golden hour sunlight, camera slowly pans upward.", "height": "720", "width": "1280", "n_seconds": "12", "n_variants": "2" } Parameter Details: model (String, Required): Your Azure deployment name prompt (String, Required): Natural language description of the video (max 32000 chars) height (String, Required): Video height in pixels width (String, Required): Video width in pixels n_seconds (String, Required): Duration (1-20 seconds) n_variants (String, Optional): Number of variations to generate (1-4, constrained by resolution) Sora 2 API Parameters Text-to-Video Request: { "model": "sora-2", "prompt": "A serene mountain landscape with cascading waterfalls, cinematic drone shot", "size": "1280x720", "seconds": "12" } Image-to-Video Request (uses FormData): const formData = new FormData(); formData.append('model', 'sora-2'); formData.append('prompt', 'Animate this image with gentle wind movement'); formData.append('size', '1280x720'); formData.append('seconds', '8'); formData.append('input_reference', imageFile); // JPEG/PNG/WebP Video-to-Video Remix Request: Endpoint: POST .../videos/{video_id}/remix Body: Only { "prompt": "your new description" } The original video's structure, motion, and framing are reused while applying the new prompt Parameter Details: model (String, Optional): Your deployment name prompt (String, Required): Video description size (String, Optional): Either "720x1280" or "1280x720" (defaults to "720x1280") seconds (String, Optional): "4", "8", or "12" (defaults to "4") input_reference (File, Optional): Reference image for image-to-video mode remix_video_id (String, URL parameter): ID of video to remix Video Generation Modes 1. Text-to-Video (Both Models) The foundational mode where you provide a text prompt describing the desired video. Implementation: const response = await fetch(endpoint, { method: 'POST', headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json', 'api-key': apiKey, }, body: JSON.stringify({ model: deployment, prompt: "A train journey through mountains with dramatic lighting", size: "1280x720", seconds: "12", }), }); Best Practices: Include shot type (wide, close-up, aerial) Describe subject, action, and environment Specify lighting conditions (golden hour, dramatic, soft) Add camera movement if desired (pans, tilts, tracking shots) 2. Image-to-Video (Sora 2 Only) Generate a video anchored to or starting from a reference image. Key Requirements: Supported formats: JPEG, PNG, WebP Image dimensions must exactly match the selected video resolution Our implementation automatically resizes uploaded images to match Implementation Detail: // Resize image to match video dimensions const targetWidth = parseInt(width); const targetHeight = parseInt(height); const resizedImage = await resizeImage(inputReference, targetWidth, targetHeight); // Send as multipart/form-data formData.append('input_reference', resizedImage); 3. Video-to-Video Remix (Sora 2 Only) Create variations of existing videos while preserving their structure and motion. Use Cases: Change weather conditions in the same scene Modify time of day while keeping camera movement Swap subjects while maintaining composition Adjust artistic style or color grading Endpoint Structure: POST {base_url}/videos/{original_video_id}/remix?api-version=2024-08-01-preview Implementation: let requestEndpoint = endpoint; if (isSora2 && remixVideoId) { const [baseUrl, queryParams] = endpoint.split('?'); const root = baseUrl.replace(/\/videos$/, ''); requestEndpoint = `${root}/videos/${remixVideoId}/remix${queryParams ? '?' + queryParams : ''}`; } Cost Analysis per Generation Sora 1 Pricing Model Base Rate: ~$0.05 per second per variant at 720p Resolution Scaling: Cost scales linearly with pixel count Formula: const basePrice = 0.05; const basePixels = 1280 * 720; // Reference resolution const currentPixels = width * height; const resolutionMultiplier = currentPixels / basePixels; const totalCost = basePrice * duration * variants * resolutionMultiplier; Examples: 720p (1280×720), 12 seconds, 1 variant: $0.60 1080p (1920×1080), 12 seconds, 1 variant: $1.35 720p, 12 seconds, 2 variants: $1.20 Sora 2 Pricing Model Flat Rate: $0.10 per second per variant (no resolution scaling in public preview) Formula: const totalCost = 0.10 * duration * variants; Examples: 720p (1280×720), 4 seconds: $0.40 720p (1280×720), 12 seconds: $1.20 720p (720×1280), 8 seconds: $0.80 Note: Since Sora 2 currently only supports 720p in public preview, resolution doesn't affect cost, only duration matters. Cost Comparison Scenario Sora 1 (720p) Sora 2 (720p) Winner 4s video $0.20 $0.40 Sora 1 12s video $0.60 $1.20 Sora 1 12s + audio N/A (no audio) $1.20 Sora 2 (unique) Image-to-video N/A $0.40-$1.20 Sora 2 (unique) Recommendation: Use Sora 1 for cost-effective silent videos at various resolutions. Use Sora 2 when you need audio, image/video inputs, or remix capabilities. Technical Limitations & Constraints Sora 1 Limitations Resolution Options: 9 supported resolutions from 480×480 to 1920×1080 Includes square, portrait, and landscape formats Full list: 480×480, 480×854, 854×480, 720×720, 720×1280, 1280×720, 1080×1080, 1080×1920, 1920×1080 Duration: Flexible: 1 to 20 seconds Any integer value within range Variants: Depends on resolution: 1080p: Variants disabled (n_variants must be 1) 720p: Max 2 variants Other resolutions: Max 4 variants Concurrent Jobs: Maximum 2 jobs running simultaneously Job Expiration: Videos expire 24 hours after generation Audio: No audio generation (silent videos only) Sora 2 Limitations Resolution Options (Public Preview): Only 2 options: 720×1280 (portrait) or 1280×720 (landscape) No square formats No 1080p support in current preview Duration: Fixed options only: 4, 8, or 12 seconds No custom durations Defaults to 4 seconds if not specified Variants: Not prominently supported in current API documentation Focus is on single high-quality generations with audio Concurrent Jobs: Maximum 2 jobs (same as Sora 1) Job Expiration: 24 hours (same as Sora 1) Audio: Native audio generation included (dialogue, sound effects, ambience) Shared Constraints Concurrent Processing: Both models enforce a limit of 2 concurrent video jobs per Azure resource. You must wait for one job to complete before starting a third. Job Lifecycle: queued → preprocessing → processing/running → completed Download Window: Videos are available for 24 hours after completion. After expiration, you must regenerate the video. Generation Time: Typical: 1-5 minutes depending on resolution, duration, and API load Can occasionally take longer during high demand Resolution & Duration Support Matrix Sora 1 Support Matrix Resolution Aspect Ratio Max Variants Duration Range Use Case 480×480 Square 4 1-20s Social thumbnails 480×854 Portrait 4 1-20s Mobile stories 854×480 Landscape 4 1-20s Quick previews 720×720 Square 4 1-20s Instagram posts 720×1280 Portrait 2 1-20s TikTok/Reels 1280×720 Landscape 2 1-20s YouTube shorts 1080×1080 Square 1 1-20s Premium social 1080×1920 Portrait 1 1-20s Premium vertical 1920×1080 Landscape 1 1-20s Full HD content Sora 2 Support Matrix Resolution Aspect Ratio Duration Options Audio Generation Modes 720×1280 Portrait 4s, 8s, 12s ✅ Yes Text, Image, Video Remix 1280×720 Landscape 4s, 8s, 12s ✅ Yes Text, Image, Video Remix Note: Sora 2's limited resolution options in public preview are expected to expand in future releases. Implementation Best Practices 1. Job Status Polling Strategy Implement adaptive backoff to avoid overwhelming the API: const maxAttempts = 180; // 15 minutes max let attempts = 0; const baseDelayMs = 3000; // Start with 3 seconds while (attempts < maxAttempts) { const response = await fetch(statusUrl, { headers: { 'api-key': apiKey }, }); if (response.status === 404) { // Job not ready yet, wait longer const delayMs = Math.min(15000, baseDelayMs + attempts * 1000); await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, delayMs)); attempts++; continue; } const job = await response.json(); // Check completion (different status values for Sora 1 vs 2) const isCompleted = isSora2 ? job.status === 'completed' : job.status === 'succeeded'; if (isCompleted) break; // Adaptive backoff const delayMs = Math.min(15000, baseDelayMs + attempts * 1000); await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, delayMs)); attempts++; } 2. Handling Different Response Structures Sora 1 Video Download: const generations = Array.isArray(job.generations) ? job.generations : []; const genId = generations[0]?.id; const videoUrl = `${root}/${genId}/content/video`; Sora 2 Video Download: const videoUrl = `${root}/videos/${jobId}/content`; 3. Error Handling try { const response = await fetch(endpoint, fetchOptions); if (!response.ok) { const error = await response.text(); throw new Error(`Video generation failed: ${error}`); } // ... handle successful response } catch (error) { console.error('[VideoGen] Error:', error); // Implement retry logic or user notification } 4. Image Preprocessing for Image-to-Video Always resize images to match the target video resolution: async function resizeImage(file: File, targetWidth: number, targetHeight: number): Promise<File> { return new Promise((resolve, reject) => { const img = new Image(); const canvas = document.createElement('canvas'); const ctx = canvas.getContext('2d'); img.onload = () => { canvas.width = targetWidth; canvas.height = targetHeight; ctx.drawImage(img, 0, 0, targetWidth, targetHeight); canvas.toBlob((blob) => { if (blob) { const resizedFile = new File([blob], file.name, { type: file.type }); resolve(resizedFile); } else { reject(new Error('Failed to create resized image blob')); } }, file.type); }; img.onerror = () => reject(new Error('Failed to load image')); img.src = URL.createObjectURL(file); }); } 5. Cost Tracking Implement cost estimation before generation and tracking after: // Pre-generation estimate const estimatedCost = calculateCost(width, height, duration, variants, soraVersion); // Save generation record await saveGenerationRecord({ prompt, soraModel: soraVersion, duration: parseInt(duration), resolution: `${width}x${height}`, variants: parseInt(variants), generationMode: mode, estimatedCost, status: 'queued', jobId: job.id, }); // Update after completion await updateGenerationStatus(jobId, 'completed', { videoId: finalVideoId }); 6. Progressive User Feedback Provide detailed status updates during the generation process: const statusMessages: Record<string, string> = { 'preprocessing': 'Preprocessing your request...', 'running': 'Generating video...', 'processing': 'Processing video...', 'queued': 'Job queued...', 'in_progress': 'Generating video...', }; onProgress?.(statusMessages[job.status] || `Status: ${job.status}`); Conclusion Building with Azure OpenAI's Sora models requires understanding the nuanced differences between Sora 1 and Sora 2, both in API structure and capabilities. Key takeaways: Choose the right model: Sora 1 for resolution flexibility and cost-effectiveness; Sora 2 for audio, image inputs, and remix capabilities Handle API differences: Implement conditional logic for parameter formatting and status polling based on model version Respect limitations: Plan around concurrent job limits, resolution constraints, and 24-hour expiration windows Optimize costs: Calculate estimates upfront and track actual usage for better budget management Provide great UX: Implement adaptive polling, progressive status updates, and clear error messages The future of AI video generation is exciting, and Azure AI Foundry provides production-ready access to these powerful models. As Sora 2 matures and limitations are lifted (especially resolution options), we'll see even more creative applications emerge. Resources: Azure AI Foundry Sora Documentation OpenAI Sora API Reference Azure OpenAI Service Pricing This blog post is based on real-world implementation experience building LemonGrab, my AI video generation platform that integrates both Sora 1 and Sora 2 through Azure AI Foundry. The code examples are extracted from production usage.Microsoft Industrial AI Partner Guide: Choosing the Right Data Expertise for Every Stage
As organizations scale Industrial AI, the challenge shifts from technology selection to deciding who should lead which part of the journey -- and when. Which partners should establish secure connectivity? Who enables production grade, AI ready industrial data? When do systems integrators step in to scale globally? This Partner Guide helps customers navigate these decisions with clarity and confidence: Identify which partners align to their current digital transformation and Industrial AI scenarios leveraging Azure IoT and Azure IoT Operations Confidently combine partners over time as they evolve from connectivity to intelligence to autonomous operations This guide focuses on the Industrial AI data plane – the partners and capabilities that extract, contextualize, and operationalize industrial data so it can reliably power AI at scale. It does not attempt to catalog or prescribe end‑to‑end Industrial AI applications or cloud‑hosted AI solutions. Instead, it helps customers understand how industrial partners create the trusted, contextualized data foundation upon which AI solutions can be built. Common Customer Journey Steps 1. Modernize Connectivity & Edge Foundations The industrial transformation journey starts with securely accessing operational data without touching deterministic control loops. Customers connect automation systems to a scalable, standards-based data foundation that modernizes operations while preserving safety, uptime and control. Outcomes customers realize Standardized OT data access across plants and sites Faster onboarding of legacy and new assets Clear OT–IT boundaries that protect safety and uptime Partner strengths at this stage Industrial hardware and edge infrastructure providers Protocol translation and OT connectivity Automation and edge platforms aligned with Azure IoT Operations 2. Accelerate Insights with Industrial AI With a consistent edge-to-cloud data plane in place, customers move beyond dashboards to repeatable, production-grade Industrial AI use cases. Customers rely on expert partners to turn standardized operational data into AI‑ready signals that can be consumed by analytics and AI solutions at scale across assets, lines, and sites. Outcomes customers realize Improved Operational efficiency and performance Adaptive facilities and production quality intelligence Energy, safety, and defect detection at scale Partner strengths at this stage Industrial data services that contextualize and standardize OT signals for AI consumption Domain-specific acceleration for common Industrial AI scenarios Data pipelines integrated with Azure IoT Operations and Microsoft Fabric 3. Prepare for Autonomous Operations As organizations advance toward closed‑loop optimization, the focus shifts to safe, scalable autonomy. Customers depend on partners to align data, infrastructure, and operational interfaces, while ensuring ongoing monitoring, governance, and lifecycle management across the full operational estate. Outcomes customers realize Proven reference architectures deployed across plants AI‑ready data foundations that adapt as operations scale Coordinated interaction between OT systems, AI models, and cloud intelligence Partner strengths at this stage Industrial automation leadership and control system expertise Edge infrastructure optimized and ready for Industrial AI scale Systems integrators enabling end‑to‑end implementation and repeatability Data Intelligence Plane of Industrial AI - Partner Matrix This matrix highlights which partners have the deepest expertise in accessing, contextualizing, and operationalizing industrial data so it can reliably power AI at scale. The matrix is not a catalog of end‑to‑end Industrial AI applications; it shows how specialized partners contribute data, infrastructure, and integration capabilities on a shared Azure foundation as organizations progress from connectivity to insight to autonomous operations. How to use this matrix: Start with your scenario → identify primary partner types → layer complementary partners as you scale. Partner Type Adaptive Cloud Primary Solution Example Scenarios Geography Advantech Industrial Hardware, Industrial Connectivity LoRaWAN gateway integration + Azure IoT Operations Industrial edge platforms with built in connectivity, industrial compute, LoRaWAN, sensor networks Global Accenture GSI Industrial AI, Digital Transformation, Modernization OEE, predictive maintenance, real-time defect detection, optimize supply chains, intelligent automation and robotics, energy efficiency Global Avanade GSI Factory Agents and Analytics based on Manufacturing Data Solutions Yield / Quality optimization, OEE, Agentic Root Cause Analysis and process optimization; Unified ISA-95 Manufacturing Data estate on MS Fabric Global Capgemini GSI The new AI imperative in manufacturing OEE, maintenance, defect detection, energy, robotics Global DXC GSI Intelligent Boost AI and IoT Analytics Platform 5G Industrial Connectivity, Defect detection, OEE, safety, energy monitoring Global Innominds SI Intelligent Connected Edge Platform Predictive maintenance, AI on edge, asset tracking North America, EMEA Litmus Automation Industrial Connectivity, Industrial Data Ops Litmus Edge + Azure IoT Operations Edge Data, Smart manufacturing, IIoT deployments at scale Global, North America Mesh Systems GSI & ISV Azure IoT & Azure IoT Operations implementation services and solutions (including Azure IoT Operations-aligned connector patterns) Device connectivity and management, data platforms, visualization, AI agents, and security North America, EMEA Nortal GSI Data-driven Industry Solutions IT/OT Connectivity, Unified Namespace, Digital Twins, Optimization, Edge, Industrial Data, Real‑Time Analytics & AI EMEA, North America & LATAM NVIDIA Technology Partner Accelerated AI Infrastructure; Open libraries, models, frameworks, and blueprints for AI development and deployment. Cross industry digitalization and AI development and deployment: Generative AI, Agentic AI, Physical AI, Robotics Global Oracle ISV Oracle Fusion Cloud SCM + Azure IoT Operations Real-time manufacturing Intelligence, AI powered insights, and automated production workflows Global Rockwell Automation Industrial Automation FactoryTalk Optix + Azure IoT Operations Factory modernization, visualization, edge orchestration, DataOps with connectivity context at scale, AI ops and services, physical equipment, MES Global Schneider Electric Industrial Automation Industrial Edge Physical equipment, Device modernization, energy, grid Global Siemens Industrial Automation & Software Industrial Edge + Azure IoT Operations reference architecture Industrial edge infrastructure at scale, OT/IT convergence, DataOps, Industrial AI suite, virtualized automation. Global Sight Machine ISV Integrated Industrial AI Stack Industrial AI, bottling, process optimization Global Softing Industrial Industrial Connectivity edgeConnector + Azure IoT Operations OT connectivity, multi-vendor PLC- and machine data integration, OPC UA information model deployment EMEA, Global TCS GSI Sensor to cloud intelligence Operations optimization, healthcare digital twin experiences, supply chain monitoring Global This Ecosystem Model enables Industrial AI solutions to scale through clear roles, respected boundaries and composable systems: Control systems continue to be driven by automation leaders Safety‑critical, deterministic control stays with industrial automation partners who manage real‑time operations and plant safety. Customers modernize analytics and AI while preserving uptime, reliability, and operational integrity. Data, AI, and analytics scale independently A consistent edge to cloud data plane supports cloud scale analytics and AI, accelerating insight delivery without entangling control systems or slowing operational change. This separation allows customers and software providers to build AI solutions on top of a stable, industrial‑grade data foundation without redefining control system responsibilities. Specialized partners align solutions across the estate Partners contribute focused expertise across connectivity, analytics, security, and operations, assembling solutions that reduce integration risk, shorten deployment cycles, and speed time to value across the operational estate. From vision to production Industrial AI at scale depends on turning operational data into trusted, contextualized intelligence safely, repeatably, and across the enterprise. This guide shows how industrial partners, aligned on a shared Azure foundation, create the data plane that enables AI solutions to succeed in production. When data is ready, intelligence scales. Call to action: Use this guide to identify the partners and capabilities that best align to your current Industrial AI needs and take the next step toward production‑ready outcomes on Azure.AI Didn’t Break Your Production — Your Architecture Did
Most AI systems don’t fail in the lab. They fail the moment production touches them. I’m Hazem Ali — Microsoft AI MVP, Principal AI & ML Engineer / Architect, and Founder & CEO of Skytells. With a strong foundation in AI and deep learning from low-level fundamentals to production-scale, backed by rigorous cybersecurity and software engineering expertise, I design and deliver enterprise AI systems end-to-end. I often speak about what happens after the pilot goes live: real users arrive, data drifts, security constraints tighten, and incidents force your architecture to prove it can survive. My focus is building production AI with a security-first mindset: identity boundaries, enforceable governance, incident-ready operations, and reliability at scale. My mission is simple: Architect and engineer secure AI systems that operate safely, predictably, and at scale in production. And here’s the hard truth: AI initiatives rarely fail because the model is weak. They fail because the surrounding architecture was never engineered for production reality. - Hazem Ali You see this clearly when teams bolt AI onto an existing platform. In Azure-based environments, the foundation can be solid—identity, networking, governance, logging, policy enforcement, and scale primitives. But that doesn’t make the AI layer production-grade by default. It becomes production-grade only when the AI runtime is engineered like a first-class subsystem with explicit boundaries, control points, and designed failure behavior. A quick moment from the field I still remember one rollout that looked perfect on paper. Latency was fine. Error rate was low. Dashboards were green. Everyone was relaxed. Then a single workflow started creating the wrong tickets, not failing or crashing. It was confidently doing the wrong thing at scale. It took hours before anyone noticed, because nothing was broken in the traditional sense. When we finally traced it, the model was not the root cause. The system had no real gates, no replayable trail, and tool execution was too permissive. The architecture made it easy for a small mistake to become a widespread mess. That is the gap I’m talking about in this article. Production Failure Taxonomy This is the part most teams skip because it is not exciting, and it is not easy to measure in a demo. When AI fails in production, the postmortem rarely says the model was bad. It almost always points to missing boundaries, over-privileged execution, or decisions nobody can trace. So if your AI can take actions, you are no longer shipping a chat feature. You are operating a runtime that can change state across real systems, that means reliability is not just uptime. It is the ability to limit blast radius, reproduce decisions, and stop or degrade safely when uncertainty or risk spikes. You can usually tell early whether an AI initiative will survive production. Not because the model is weak, but because the failure mode is already baked into the architecture. Here are the ones I see most often. 1. Healthy systems that are confidently wrong Uptime looks perfect. Latency is fine. And the output is wrong. This is dangerous because nothing alerts until real damage shows up. 2. The agent ends up with more authority than the user The user asks a question. The agent has tools and credentials. Now it can do things the user never should have been able to do in that moment. 3. Each action is allowed, but the chain is not Read data, create ticket, send message. All approved individually. Put together, it becomes a capability nobody reviewed. 4. Retrieval becomes the attack path Most teams worry about prompt injection. Fair. But a poisoned or stale retrieval layer can be worse, because it feeds the model the wrong truth. 5. Tool calls turn mistakes into incidents The moment AI can change state—config, permissions, emails, payments, or data—a mistake is no longer a bad answer. It is an incident. 6. Retries duplicate side effects Timeouts happen. Retries happen. If your tool calls are not safe to repeat, you will create duplicate tickets, refunds, emails, or deletes. Next, let’s talk about what changes when you inject probabilistic behavior into a deterministic platform. In the Field: Building and Sharing Real-World AI In December 2025, I had the chance to speak and engage with builders across multiple AI and technology events, sharing what I consider the most valuable part of the journey: the engineering details that show up when AI meets production reality. This photo captures one of those moments: real conversations with engineers, architects, and decision-makers about what it truly takes to ship production-grade AI. During my session, Designing Scalable and Secure Architecture at the Enterprise Scale I walked through the ideas in this article live on stage then went deeper into the engineering reality behind them: from zero-trust boundaries and runtime policy enforcement to observability, traceability, and safe failure design, The goal wasn’t to talk about “AI capability,” but to show how to build AI systems that operate safely and predictably at scale in production. Deterministic platforms, probabilistic behavior Most production platforms are built for deterministic behavior: defined contracts, predictable services, stable outputs. AI changes the physics. You introduce probabilistic behavior into deterministic pipelines and your failure modes multiply. An AI system can be confidently wrong while still looking “healthy” through basic uptime dashboards. That’s why reliability in production AI is rarely about “better prompts” or “higher model accuracy.” It’s about engineering the right control points: identity boundaries, governance enforcement, behavioral observability, and safe degradation. In other words: the model is only one component. The system is the product. Production AI Control Plane Here’s the thing. Once you inject probabilistic behavior into a deterministic platform, you need more than prompts and endpoints. You need a control plane. Not a fancy framework. Just a clear place in the runtime where decisions get bounded, actions get authorized, and behavior becomes explainable when something goes wrong. This is the simplest shape I have seen work in real enterprise systems. The control plane components Orchestrator Owns the workflow. Decides what happens next, and when the system should stop. Retrieval Brings in context, but only from sources you trust and can explain later. Prompt assembly Builds the final input to the model, including constraints, policy signals, and tool schemas. Model call Generates the plan or the response. It should never be trusted to execute directly. Policy Enforcement Point The gate before any high impact step. It answers: is this allowed, under these conditions, with these constraints. Tool Gateway The firewall for actions. Scopes every operation, validates inputs, rate-limits, and blocks unsafe calls. Audit log and trace store A replayable chain for every request. If you cannot replay it, you cannot debug it. Risk engine Detects prompt injection signals, anomalous sessions, uncertainty spikes, and switches the runtime into safer modes. Approval flow For the few actions that should never be automatic. It is the line between assistance and damage. If you take one idea from this section, let it be this. The model is not where you enforce safety. Safety lives in the control plane. Next, let’s talk about the most common mistake teams make right after they build the happy-path pipeline. Treating AI like a feature. The common architectural trap: treating AI like a feature Many teams ship AI like a feature: prompt → model → response. That structure demos well. In production, it collapses the moment AI output influences anything stateful tickets, approvals, customer messaging, remediation actions, or security decisions. At that point, you’re not “adding AI.” You’re operating a semi-autonomous runtime. The engineering questions become non-negotiable: Can we explain why the system responded this way? Can we bound what it’s allowed to do? Can we contain impact when it’s wrong? Can we recover without human panic? If those answers aren’t designed into the architecture, production becomes a roulette wheel. Governance is not a document It’s a runtime enforcement capability Most governance programs fail because they’re implemented as late-stage checklists. In production, governance must live inside the execution path as an enforceable mechanism, A Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) that evaluates every high-impact step before it happens. At the moment of execution, your runtime must answer a strict chain of authorization questions: 1. What tools is this agent attempting to call? Every tool invocation is a privilege boundary. Your runtime must identify the tool, the operation, and the intended side effect (read vs write, safe vs state-changing). 2. Does the tool have the right permissions to run for this agent? Even before user context, the tool itself must be runnable by the agent’s workload identity (service principal / managed identity / workload credentials). If the agent identity can’t execute the tool, the call is denied period. 3. If the tool can run, is the agent permitted to use it for this user? This is the missing piece in most systems: delegation. The agent might be able to run the tool in general, but not on behalf of this user, in this tenant, in this environment, for this task category. This is where you enforce: user role / entitlement tenant boundaries environment (prod vs staging) session risk level (normal vs suspicious) 4. If yes, which tasks/operations are permitted? Tools are too broad. Permissions must be operation-scoped. Not “Jira tool allowed.” But “Jira: create ticket only, no delete, no project-admin actions.” Not “Database tool allowed.” But “DB: read-only, specific schema, specific columns, row-level filters.” This is ABAC/RBAC + capability-based execution. 5. What data scope is allowed? Even a permitted tool operation must be constrained by data classification and scope: public vs internal vs confidential vs PII row/column filters time-bounded access purpose limitation (“only for incident triage”) If the system can’t express data scope at runtime, it can’t claim governance. 6. What operations require human approval? Some actions are inherently high risk: payments/refunds changing production configs emailing customers deleting data executing scripts The policy should return “REQUIRE_APPROVAL” with clear obligations (what must be reviewed, what evidence is required, who can approve). 7. What actions are forbidden under certain risk conditions? Risk-aware policy is the difference between governance and theater. Examples: If prompt injection signals are high → disable tool execution If session is anomalous → downgrade to read-only mode If data is PII + user not entitled → deny and redact If environment is prod + request is destructive → block regardless of model confidence The key engineering takeaway Governance works only when it’s enforceable, runtime-evaluated, and capability-scoped: Agent identity answers: “Can it run at all?” Delegation answers: “Can it run for this user?” Capabilities answer: “Which operations exactly?” Data scope answers: “How much and what kind of data?” Risk gates + approvals answer: “When must it stop or escalate?” If policy can’t be enforced at runtime, it isn’t governance. It’s optimism. Safe Execution Patterns Policy answers whether something is allowed. Safe execution answers what happens when things get messy. Because they will, Models time out, Retries happen, Inputs are adversarial. People ask for the wrong thing. Agents misunderstand. And when tools can change state, small mistakes turn into real incidents. These patterns are what keep the system stable when the world is not. 👈 Two-phase execution Do not execute directly from a model output. First phase: propose a plan and a dry-run summary of what will change. Second phase: execute only after policy gates pass, and approval is collected if required. Idempotency for every write If a tool call can create, refund, email, delete, or deploy, it must be safe to retry. Every write gets an idempotency key, and the gateway rejects duplicates. This one change prevents a huge class of production pain. Default to read-only when risk rises When injection signals spike, when the session looks anomalous, when retrieval looks suspicious, the system should not keep acting. It should downgrade. Retrieve, explain, and ask. No tool execution. Scope permissions to operations, not tools Tools are too broad. Do not allow Jira. Allow create ticket in these projects, with these fields. Do not allow database access. Allow read-only on this schema, with row and column filters. Rate limits and blast radius caps Agents should have a hard ceiling. Max tool calls per request. Max writes per session. Max affected entities. If the cap is hit, stop and escalate. A kill switch that actually works You need a way to disable tool execution across the fleet in one move. When an incident happens, you do not want to redeploy code. You want to stop the bleeding. If you build these in early, you stop relying on luck. You make failure boring, contained, and recoverable. Think for scale, in the Era of AI for AI I want to zoom out for a second, because this is the shift most teams still design around. We are not just adding AI to a product. We are entering a phase where parts of the system can maintain and improve themselves. Not in a magical way. In a practical, engineering way. A self-improving system is one that can watch what is happening in production, spot a class of problems, propose changes, test them, and ship them safely, while leaving a clear trail behind it. It can improve code paths, adjust prompts, refine retrieval rules, update tests, and tighten policies. Over time, the system becomes less dependent on hero debugging at 2 a.m. What makes this real is the loop, not the model. Signals come in from logs, traces, incidents, drift metrics, and quality checks. The system turns those signals into a scoped plan. Then it passes through gates: policy and permissions, safe scope, testing, and controlled rollout. If something looks wrong, it stops, downgrades to read-only, or asks for approval. This is why scale changes. In the old world, scale meant more users and more traffic. In the AI for AI world, scale also means more autonomy. One request can trigger many tool calls. One workflow can spawn sub-agents. One bad signal can cause retries and cascades. So the question is not only can your system handle load. The question is can your system handle multiplication without losing control. If you want self-improving behavior, you need three things to be true: The system is allowed to change only what it can prove is safe to change. Every change is testable and reversible. Every action is traceable, so you can replay why it happened. When those conditions exist, self-improvement becomes an advantage. When they do not, self-improvement becomes automated risk. And this leads straight into governance, because in this era governance is not a document. It is the gate that decides what the system is allowed to improve, and under which conditions. Observability: uptime isn’t enough — you need traceability and causality Traditional observability answers: Is the service up. Is it fast. Is it erroring. That is table stakes. Production AI needs a deeper truth: why did it do that. Because the system can look perfectly healthy while still making the wrong decision. Latency is fine. Error rate is fine. Dashboards are green. And the output is still harmful. To debug that kind of failure, you need causality you can replay and audit: Input → context retrieval → prompt assembly → model response → tool invocation → final outcome Without this chain, incident response becomes guesswork. People argue about prompts, blame the model, and ship small patches that do not address the real cause. Then the same issue comes back under a different prompt, a different document, or a slightly different user context. The practical goal is simple. Every high-impact action should have a story you can reconstruct later. What did the system see. What did it pull. What did it decide. What did it touch. And which policy allowed it. When you have that, you stop chasing symptoms. You can fix the actual failure point, and you can detect drift before users do. RAG Governance and Data Provenance Most teams treat retrieval as a quality feature. In production, retrieval is a security boundary. Because the moment a document enters the context window, it becomes part of the system’s brain for that request. If retrieval pulls the wrong thing, the model can behave perfectly and still lead you to a bad outcome. I learned this the hard way, I have seen systems where the model was not the problem at all. The problem was a single stale runbook that looked official, ranked high, and quietly took over the decision. Everything downstream was clean. The agent followed instructions, called the right tools, and still caused damage because the truth it was given was wrong. I keep repeating one line in reviews, and I mean it every time: Retrieval is where truth enters the system. If you do not control that, you are not governing anything. - Hazem Ali So what makes retrieval safe enough for enterprise use? Provenance on every chunk Every retrieved snippet needs a label you can defend later: source, owner, timestamp, and classification. If you cannot answer where it came from, you cannot trust it for actions. Staleness budgets Old truth is a real risk. A runbook from last quarter can be more dangerous than no runbook at all. If content is older than a threshold, the system should say it is old, and either confirm or downgrade to read-only. No silent reliance. Allowlisted sources per task Not all sources are valid for all jobs. Incident response might allow internal runbooks. Customer messaging might require approved templates only. Make this explicit. Retrieval should not behave like a free-for-all search engine. Scope and redaction before the model sees it Row and column limits, PII filtering, secret stripping, tenant boundaries. Do it before prompt assembly, not after the model has already seen the data. Citation requirement for high-impact steps If the system is about to take a high-impact action, it should be able to point to the sources that justified it. If it cannot, it should stop and ask. That one rule prevents a lot of confident nonsense. Monitor retrieval like a production dependency Track which sources are being used, which ones cause incidents, and where drift is coming from. Retrieval quality is not static. Content changes. Permissions change. Rankings shift. Behavior follows. When you treat retrieval as governance, the system stops absorbing random truth. It consumes controlled truth, with ownership, freshness, and scope. That is what production needs. Security: API keys aren’t a strategy when agents can act The highest-impact AI incidents are usually not model hacks. They are architectural failures: over-privileged identities, blurred trust boundaries, unbounded tool access, and unsafe retrieval paths. Once an agent can call tools that mutate state, treat it like a privileged service, not a chatbot. Least privilege by default Explicit authorization boundaries Auditable actions Containment-first design Clear separation between user intent and system authority This is how you prevent a prompt injection from turning into a system-level breach. If you want the deeper blueprint and the concrete patterns for securing agents in practice, I wrote a full breakdown here: Zero-Trust Agent Architecture: How to Actually Secure Your Agents What “production-ready AI” actually means Production-ready AI is not defined by a benchmark score. It’s defined by survivability under uncertainty. A production-grade AI system can: Explain itself with traceability. Enforce policy at runtime. Contain blast radius when wrong. Degrade safely under uncertainty. Recover with clear operational playbooks. If your system can’t answer “how does it fail?” you don’t have production AI yet.. You have a prototype with unmanaged risk. How Azure helps you engineer production-grade AI Azure doesn’t “solve” production-ready AI by itself, it gives you the primitives to engineer it correctly. The difference between a prototype and a survivable system is whether you translate those primitives into runtime control points: identity, policy enforcement, telemetry, and containment. 1. Identity-first execution (kill credential sprawl, shrink blast radius) A production AI runtime should not run on shared API keys or long-lived secrets. In Azure environments, the most important mindset shift is: every agent/workflow must have an identity and that identity must be scoped. Guidance Give each agent/orchestrator a dedicated identity (least privilege by default). Separate identities by environment (prod vs staging) and by capability (read vs write). Treat tool invocation as a privileged service call, never “just a function.” Why this matters If an agent is compromised (or tricked via prompt injection), identity boundaries decide whether it can read one table or take down a whole environment. 2. Policy as enforcement (move governance into the execution path) Your article’s core idea governance is runtime enforcement maps perfectly to Azure’s broader governance philosophy: policies must be enforceable, not advisory. Guidance Create an explicit Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) in your agent runtime. Make the PEP decision mandatory before executing any tool call or data access. Use “allow + obligations” patterns: allow only with constraints (redaction, read-only mode, rate limits, approval gates, extra logging). Why this matters Governance fails when it’s a document. It works when it’s compiled into runtime decisions. 3. Observability that explains behavior Azure’s telemetry stack is valuable because it’s designed for distributed systems: correlation, tracing, and unified logs. Production AI needs the same plus decision traceability. Guidance Emit a trace for every request across: retrieval → prompt assembly → model call → tool calls → outcome. Log policy decisions (allow/deny/require approval) with policy version + obligations applied. Capture “why” signals: risk score, classifier outputs, injection signals, uncertainty indicators. Why this matters When incidents happen, you don’t just debug latency — you debug behavior. Without causality, you can’t root-cause drift or containment failures. 4. Zero-trust boundaries for tools and data Azure environments tend to be strong at network segmentation and access control. That foundation is exactly what AI systems need because AI introduces adversarial inputs by default. Guidance Put a Tool Gateway in front of tools (Jira, email, payments, infra) and enforce scopes there. Restrict data access by classification (PII/secret zones) and enforce row/column constraints. Degrade safely: if risk is high, drop to read-only, disable tools, or require approval. Why this matters Prompt injection doesn’t become catastrophic when your system has hard boundaries and graceful failure modes. 5. Practical “production-ready” checklist (Azure-aligned, engineering-first) If you want a concrete way to apply this: Identity: every runtime has a scoped identity; no shared secrets PEP: every tool/data action is gated by policy, with obligations Traceability: full chain captured and correlated end-to-end Containment: safe degradation + approval gates for high-risk actions Auditability: policy versions and decision logs are immutable and replayable Environment separation: prod ≠ staging identities, tools, and permissions Outcome This is how you turn “we integrated AI” into “we operate AI safely at scale.” Operating Production AI A lot of teams build the architecture and still struggle, because production is not a diagram. It is a living system. So here is the operating model I look for when I want to trust an AI runtime in production. The few SLOs that actually matter Trace completeness For high-impact requests, can we reconstruct the full chain every time, without missing steps. Policy coverage What percentage of tool calls and sensitive reads pass through the policy gate, with a recorded decision. Action correctness Not model accuracy. Real-world correctness. Did the system take the right action, on the right target, with the right scope. Time to contain When something goes wrong, how fast can we stop tool execution, downgrade to read-only, or isolate a capability. Drift detection time How quickly do we notice behavioral drift before users do. The runbooks you must have If you operate agents, you need simple playbooks for predictable bad days: Injection spike → safe mode, block tool execution, force approvals Retrieval poisoning suspicion → restrict sources, raise freshness requirements, require citations Retry storm → enforce idempotency, rate limits, and circuit breakers Tool gateway instability → fail closed for writes, degrade safely for reads Model outage → fall back to deterministic paths, templates, or human escalation Clear ownership Someone has to own the runtime, not just the prompts. Platform owns the gates, tool gateway, audit, and tracing Product owns workflows and user-facing behavior Security owns policy rules, high-risk approvals, and incident procedures When these pieces are real, production becomes manageable. When they are not, you rely on luck and hero debugging. The 60-second production readiness checklist If you want a fast sanity check, here it is. Every agent has an identity, scoped per environment No shared API keys for privileged actions Every tool call goes through a policy gate with a logged decision Permissions are scoped to operations, not whole tools Writes are idempotent, retries cannot duplicate side effects Tool gateway validates inputs, scopes data, and rate-limits actions There is a safe mode that disables tools under risk There is a kill switch that stops tool execution across the fleet Retrieval is allowlisted, provenance-tagged, and freshness-aware High-impact actions require citations or they stop and ask Audit logs are immutable enough to trust later Traces are replayable end-to-end for any incident If most of these are missing, you do not have production AI yet. You have a prototype with unmanaged risk. A quick note In Azure-based enterprises, you already have strong primitives that mirror the mindset production AI requires: identity-first access control (Microsoft Entra ID), secure workload authentication patterns (managed identities), and deep telemetry foundations (Azure Monitor / Application Insights). The key is translating that discipline into the AI runtime so governance, identity, and observability aren’t external add-ons, but part of how AI executes and acts. Closing Models will keep evolving. Tooling will keep improving. But enterprise AI success still comes down to systems engineering. If you’re building production AI today, what has been the hardest part in your environment: governance, observability, security boundaries, or operational reliability? If you’re dealing with deep technical challenges around production AI, agent security, RAG governance, or operational reliability, feel free to connect with me on LinkedIn. I’m open to technical discussions and architecture reviews. Thanks for reading. — Hazem Ali
Building a Multi-Agent System with Azure AI Agent Service: Campus Event Management
Personal Background My name is Peace Silly. I studied French and Spanish at the University of Oxford, where I developed a strong interest in how language is structured and interpreted. That curiosity about syntax and meaning eventually led me to computer science, which I came to see as another language built on logic and structure. In the academic year 2024–2025, I completed the MSc Computer Science at University College London, where I developed this project as part of my Master’s thesis. Project Introduction Can large-scale event management be handled through a simple chat interface? This was the question that guided my Master’s thesis project at UCL. As part of the Industry Exchange Network (IXN) and in collaboration with Microsoft, I set out to explore how conversational interfaces and autonomous AI agents could simplify one of the most underestimated coordination challenges in campus life: managing events across multiple departments, societies, and facilities. At large universities, event management is rarely straightforward. Rooms are shared between academic timetables, student societies, and one-off events. A single lecture theatre might host a departmental seminar in the morning, a society meeting in the afternoon, and a careers talk in the evening, each relying on different systems, staff, and communication chains. Double bookings, last-minute cancellations, and maintenance issues are common, and coordinating changes often means long email threads, manual spreadsheets, and frustrated users. These inefficiencies do more than waste time; they directly affect how a campus functions day to day. When venues are unavailable or notifications fail to reach the right people, even small scheduling errors can ripple across entire departments. A smarter, more adaptive approach was needed, one that could manage complex workflows autonomously while remaining intuitive and human for end users. The result was the Event Management Multi-Agent System, a cloud-based platform where staff and students can query events, book rooms, and reschedule activities simply by chatting. Behind the scenes, a network of Azure-powered AI agents collaborates to handle scheduling, communication, and maintenance in real time, working together to keep the campus running smoothly. The user scenario shown in the figure below exemplifies the vision that guided the development of this multi-agent system. Starting with Microsoft Learning Resources I began my journey with Microsoft’s tutorial Build Your First Agent with Azure AI Foundry which introduced the fundamentals of the Azure AI Agent Service and provided an ideal foundation for experimentation. Within a few weeks, using the Azure Foundry environment, I extended those foundations into a fully functional multi-agent system. Azure Foundry’s visual interface was an invaluable learning space. It allowed me to deploy, test, and adjust model parameters such as temperature, system prompts, and function calling while observing how each change influenced the agents’ reasoning and collaboration. Through these experiments, I developed a strong conceptual understanding of orchestration and coordination before moving to the command line for more complex development later. When development issues inevitably arose, I relied on the Discord support community and the GitHub forum for troubleshooting. These communities were instrumental in addressing configuration issues and providing practical examples, ensuring that each agent performed reliably within the shared-thread framework. This early engagement with Microsoft’s learning materials not only accelerated my technical progress but also shaped how I approached experimentation, debugging, and iteration. It transformed a steep learning curve into a structured, hands-on process that mirrored professional software development practice. A Decentralised Team of AI Agents The system’s intelligence is distributed across three specialised agents, powered by OpenAI’s GPT-4.1 models through Azure OpenAI Service. They each perform a distinct role within the event management workflow: Scheduling Agent – interprets natural language requests, checks room availability, and allocates suitable venues. Communications Agent – notifies stakeholders when events are booked, modified, or cancelled. Maintenance Agent – monitors room readiness, posts fault reports when venues become unavailable, and triggers rescheduling when needed. Each agent operates independently but communicates through a shared thread, a transparent message log that serves as the coordination backbone. This thread acts as a persistent state space where agents post updates, react to changes, and maintain a record of every decision. For example, when a maintenance fault is detected, the Maintenance Agent logs the issue, the Scheduling Agent identifies an alternative venue, and the Communications Agent automatically notifies attendees. These interactions happen autonomously, with each agent responding to the evolving context recorded in the shared thread. Interfaces and Backend The system was designed with both developer-focused and user-facing interfaces, supporting rapid iteration and intuitive interaction. The Terminal Interface Initially, the agents were deployed and tested through a terminal interface, which provided a controlled environment for debugging and verifying logic step by step. This setup allowed quick testing of individual agents and observation of their interactions within the shared thread. The Chat Interface As the project evolved, I introduced a lightweight chat interface to make the system accessible to staff and students. This interface allows users to book rooms, query events, and reschedule activities using plain language. Recognising that some users might still want to see what happens behind the scenes, I added an optional toggle that reveals the intermediate steps of agent reasoning. This transparency feature proved valuable for debugging and for more technical users who wanted to understand how the agents collaborated. When a user interacts with the chat interface, they are effectively communicating with the Scheduling Agent, which acts as the primary entry point. The Scheduling Agent interprets natural-language commands such as “Book the Engineering Auditorium for Friday at 2 PM” or “Reschedule the robotics demo to another room.” It then coordinates with the Maintenance and Communications Agents to complete the process. Behind the scenes, the chat interface connects to a FastAPI backend responsible for core logic and data access. A Flask + HTMX layer handles lightweight rendering and interactivity, while the Azure AI Agent Service manages orchestration and shared-thread coordination. This combination enables seamless agent communication and reliable task execution without exposing any of the underlying complexity to the end user. Automated Notifications and Fault Detection Once an event is scheduled, the Scheduling Agent posts the confirmation to the shared thread. The Communications Agent, which subscribes to thread updates, automatically sends notifications to all relevant stakeholders by email. This ensures that every participant stays informed without any manual follow-up. The Maintenance Agent runs routine availability checks. If a fault is detected, it logs the issue to the shared thread, prompting the Scheduling Agent to find an alternative room. The Communications Agent then notifies attendees of the change, ensuring minimal disruption to ongoing events. Testing and Evaluation The system underwent several layers of testing to validate both functional and non-functional requirements. Unit and Integration Tests Backend reliability was evaluated through unit and integration tests to ensure that room allocation, conflict detection, and database operations behaved as intended. Automated test scripts verified end-to-end workflows for event creation, modification, and cancellation across all agents. Integration results confirmed that the shared-thread orchestration functioned correctly, with all test cases passing consistently. However, coverage analysis revealed that approximately 60% of the codebase was tested, leaving some areas such as Azure service integration and error-handling paths outside automated validation. These trade-offs were deliberate, balancing test depth with project scope and the constraints of mocking live dependencies. Azure AI Evaluation While functional testing confirmed correctness, it did not capture the agents’ reasoning or language quality. To assess this, I used Azure AI Evaluation, which measures conversational performance across metrics such as relevance, coherence, fluency, and groundedness. The results showed high scores in relevance (4.33) and groundedness (4.67), confirming the agents’ ability to generate accurate and context-aware responses. However, slightly lower fluency scores and weaker performance in multi-turn tasks revealed a retrieval–execution gap typical in task-oriented dialogue systems. Limitations and Insights The evaluation also surfaced several key limitations: Synthetic data: All tests were conducted with simulated datasets rather than live campus systems, limiting generalisability. Scalability: A non-functional requirement in the form of horizontal scalability was not tested. The architecture supports scaling conceptually but requires validation under heavier load. Despite these constraints, the testing process confirmed that the system was both technically reliable and linguistically robust, capable of autonomous coordination under normal conditions. The results provided a realistic picture of what worked well and what future iterations should focus on improving. Impact and Future Work This project demonstrates how conversational AI and multi-agent orchestration can streamline real operational processes. By combining Azure AI Agent Services with modular design principles, the system automates scheduling, communication, and maintenance while keeping the user experience simple and intuitive. The architecture also establishes a foundation for future extensions: Predictive maintenance to anticipate venue faults before they occur. Microsoft Teams integration for seamless in-chat scheduling. Scalability testing and real-user trials to validate performance at institutional scale. Beyond its technical results, the project underscores the potential of multi-agent systems in real-world coordination tasks. It illustrates how modularity, transparency, and intelligent orchestration can make everyday workflows more efficient and human-centred. Acknowledgements What began with a simple Microsoft tutorial evolved into a working prototype that reimagines how campuses could manage their daily operations through conversation and collaboration. This was both a challenging and rewarding journey, and I am deeply grateful to Professor Graham Roberts (UCL) and Professor Lee Stott (Microsoft) for their guidance, feedback, and support throughout the project.The City Leader's Dilemma: How AI Is turning urban strain into strategic advantage
Ready to transform how your city plans and operates? Download the Trend Report 2025: Planning and operating thriving cities – innovation for smarter urban living to access the complete playbook on AI-powered urban innovation, complete with case studies from Bangkok, Singapore, Barcelona, and Manchester. Urban challenges aren’t slowing down. Populations are growing, climate pressures are intensifying, and residents expect seamless services, while budgets remain flat and workforces stretch thin. Traditional approaches can’t keep pace. The good news? Cities worldwide are showing that AI and digital innovation can drive meaningful improvements. Recent studies indicate that more than half of surveyed cities are already using AI to upgrade operations, and most plan to expand adoption in the next three years. For many leaders, the question is less about whether to act and more about how to act responsibly and effectively. After studying the latest research and real-world deployments, three strategic shifts stand out, each offering a different lens on how forward-thinking city leaders are turning pressure into progress. Shift One: From Fragmented services to unified citizen experiences Residents expect seamless problem-solving, not organizational complexity. Yet many cities operate in silos, transit systems, permitting offices, 311 reporting, and community engagement often run on separate platforms. The result? Multiple apps for residents, duplicated effort for staff, and missed insights locked in departmental databases. Leading cities are breaking this pattern through unified digital platforms powered by AI. Bangkok’s Traffy Fondue: Citizens report issues like broken streetlights or flooding via a mobile interface. AI categorizes each report and routes it to the right department. By mid-2025, the platform handled nearly one million citizen reports, improving engagement and reducing administrative overhead. The outcome? Reduced administrative overhead, and something harder to measure but equally important: residents who believe their government actually listens. Buenos Aires took a similar path with "Boti," a WhatsApp chatbot that evolved from a COVID-era tool into a citywide digital assistant. Citizens report issues, ask questions, and access services through the messaging app they already use daily. Technology that meets residents where they are improves efficiency and strengthens trust, when guided by principles of transparency and fairness. Shift Two: From reactive planning to predictive foresight Traditional urban planning relies on static models: masterplans, zoning maps, historical growth trends. These tools served their purpose. But they cannot capture the complexity of future risks, extreme weather, evolving mobility patterns, or the cascading effects of a single development decision. Digital twins complement human expertise by integrating geospatial data, climate models, and policy scenarios, helping cities make smarter decisions with limited budgets. Singapore's Digital Urban Climate Twin integrates geospatial data with climate models to simulate how different policies would affect temperature and thermal comfort across neighborhoods. These tools support informed decision-making while maintaining human oversight and accountability. The result? Strategic adaptation rather than reactive firefighting. Sydney built an urban digital twin that correlates environmental conditions with traffic accidents, using machine learning to predict crash risk on specific road segments. City planners can now test interventions virtually, what happens if we lower speed limits here? Add a bike lane there? Before committing resources. Even smaller cities are finding value. Imola, Italy uses a microclimate digital twin to model heat distribution street by street, guiding decisions about where to plant trees or specify cool pavement materials. The paradigm shift is profound: instead of planning based on what happened, cities can now plan based on what's likely to happen. This is how you make smart bets with limited budgets. Shift Three: From tech adoption to governance architecture Here's where many cities stumble. They invest in flashy pilots without building the institutional structures to sustain them. The cities getting this right treat governance as a strategic asset, not a compliance burden. Singapore's Model AI Governance Framework provides practical guidelines for transparency, fairness, and human-centric design. Its AI Verify toolkit lets organizations test their systems for resilience, accountability, and bias before deployment. Barcelona takes a different but equally rigorous approach, treating municipal data as a public asset under its Data Commons program. The city's procurement strategy favors open-source solutions, preventing vendor lock-in while supporting local innovation ecosystems. Both models share a common insight: rapid innovation doesn't automatically produce equitable outcomes. Governance creates the guardrails that allow experimentation without derailment. For city leaders, this means building cross-sector governance councils, adopting clear data strategies, creating ethical AI frameworks, and investing in workforce capability. These aren't obstacles to innovation; they're the foundation that makes sustained innovation possible. The Path Forward Cities that thrive in combine strategic vision with disciplined, responsible technology use. They embed digital capabilities into decision-making, supported by robust policies and cross-department collaboration. Learn how Microsoft helps governments build tech-empowered cities and resilient infrastructure at Microsoft for government. The Smart Cities World 2025 Trend Report provides the detailed case studies, governance frameworks, and implementation roadmaps to make this real. Download your copy now and start building the city your residents deserve.AI for Personalized Government Services: Building Trust and Inclusivity in Cities
Cities today are under unprecedented pressure. Residents expect services that are fast, accessible, and tailored to their needs, yet many local governments still rely on fragmented systems and manual processes that create long queues and frustration. In a digital-first society, these gaps are no longer acceptable. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a transformative opportunity to close them, enabling governments to deliver personalized, proactive, and inclusive citizen experiences. On December 4, Smart Cities World Connect will host a Trend Report Panel Discussion bringing together city leaders, technology experts, and public sector innovators to explore how AI can reshape the citizen experience. This virtual event will highlight practical strategies for responsible AI adoption and showcase lessons from pioneering cities worldwide. Register today: Trend Report Panel Discussion (4 Dec) Why AI Matters for Cities Urban populations are growing, budgets remain tight, and climate and social pressures are mounting. Against this backdrop, AI is emerging as a critical enabler for smarter governance. By integrating AI into service delivery, cities can: Support improved wait times through AI-powered assistants and multilingual agents. Deliver proactive services using unified data and predictive analytics. Ensure equity by extending digital access to underserved communities. Build trust through transparent governance and responsible AI deployment. These capabilities are no longer theoretical. Cities from Abu Dhabi to Singapore are already embedding AI into core operations—modernizing citizen portals, automating case management, and using digital twins to plan with foresight. The panel will explore five essential areas for AI-driven transformation: 1. Smarter Citizen Engagement AI-powered virtual assistants and chatbots can handle routine inquiries, guide residents through complex processes, and provide real-time updates—across multiple languages and platforms. This not only reduces queues but also makes services more inclusive for diverse communities. 2. Proactive, Personalized Services Unified data platforms and predictive analytics allow governments to anticipate citizen needs, whether it’s notifying residents about benefit eligibility or streamlining license renewals. By moving from reactive to proactive service delivery, cities can improve satisfaction and reduce backlogs. 3. Equity at the Core Efficiency must never come at the expense of fairness. AI-enabled systems should be designed to reach underserved populations, bridging the digital divide and ensuring that innovation benefits all residents, not just the most connected. 4. Governance and Trust Responsible AI adoption requires robust frameworks for transparency, data protection, and ethical oversight. Cities must implement clear governance models, conduct algorithmic audits, and engage communities in co-design to maintain public trust. 5. Practical Steps for Integration From piloting high-impact use cases to building cross-department governance and investing in workforce training, the discussion will outline actionable steps for scaling AI responsibly. Partnerships with industry and academia will also play a vital role in accelerating adoption. Lessons from Frontier Cities Several global examples illustrate what’s possible: Manchester City Council is advancing smart urban living through AI-driven planning and operations, using integrated data platforms and predictive analytics to optimize city services, improve sustainability, and enhance citizen engagement across transport, housing, and community programs Abu Dhabi’s TAMM platform, powered by Microsoft Azure OpenAI, delivers nearly 950 government services through a single digital hub, simplifying processes and enabling personalized interactions. Singapore’s Virtual Singapore project uses AI and digital twins to simulate urban scenarios, helping planners make evidence-based decisions on mobility, safety, and climate resilience. Bangkok’s Traffy Fondue civic platform leverages AI to categorize citizen reports and route them to the right department, reducing administrative overhead and improving response times. These cases demonstrate that AI is not just a tool for efficiency, it’s a catalyst for inclusion, resilience, and trust. What Attendees Will Gain By joining the December 4 session, city leaders will leave with: A clear understanding of AI’s transformative potential for improving citizen satisfaction and reducing service backlogs. Real-world examples of successful deployments in citizen portals, case management, and service automation. Insights into ethical and regulatory considerations critical to building trust in personalized government services. Guidance on preparing organizations to adopt and scale AI effectively. Looking Ahead Cities that thrive in the coming decade will be those that combine strategic vision with disciplined, trustworthy use of technology. AI can help governments deliver services that are smarter, more inclusive, and more responsive to the needs of every resident, but success depends on strong governance, cross-sector collaboration, and a commitment to equity. To learn more and register for the Trend Report Panel Discussion on December 4.Building Secure AI Chat Systems: Part 2 - Securing Your Architecture from Storage to Network
In Part 1 of this series, we tackled the critical challenge of protecting the LLM itself from malicious inputs. We implemented three essential security layers using Azure AI services: harmful content detection with Azure Content Safety, PII protection with Azure Text Analytics, and prompt injection prevention with Prompt Shields. These guardrails ensure that your AI model doesn't process harmful requests or leak sensitive information through cleverly crafted prompts. But even with a perfectly secured LLM, your entire AI chat system can still be compromised through architectural vulnerabilities. For example, the WotNot incident wasn't about prompt injection—it was 346,000 files sitting in an unsecured cloud storage bucket. Likewise the OmniGPT breach with 34 million lines of conversation logs due to backend database security failures. The global average cost of a data breach is now $4.44 million, and it takes organizations an average of 241 days to identify and contain an active breach. That's eight months where attackers have free reign in your systems. The financial cost is one thing, but the reputational damage and loss of customer is irreversible. This article focuses on the architectural security concerns I mentioned at the end of Part 1—the infrastructure that stores your chat histories, the networks that connect your services, and the databases that power your vector searches. We'll examine real-world breaches that happened in 2024 and 2025, understand exactly what went wrong, and implement Azure solutions that would have prevented them. By the end of this article, you'll have a production-ready, secure architecture for your AI chat system that addresses the most common—and most devastating—security failures we're seeing in the wild. Let's start with the most fundamental question: where is your data, and who can access it? 1. Preventing Exposed Storage with Network Isolation The Problem: When Your Database Is One Google Search Away Let me paint you a picture of what happened with two incidents in 2024-2025: WotNot AI Chatbot left 346,000 files completely exposed in an unsecured cloud storage bucket—passports, medical records, sensitive customer data, all accessible to anyone on the internet without even a password. Security researchers who discovered it tried for over two months to get the company to fix it. In May 2025, Canva Creators' data was exposed through an unsecured Chroma vector database operated by an AI chatbot company. The database contained 341 collections of documents including survey responses from 571 Canva Creators with email addresses, countries of residence, and comprehensive feedback. This marked the first reported data leak involving a vector database. The common thread? Public internet accessibility. These databases and storage accounts were accessible from anywhere in the world. No VPN required. No private network. Just a URL and you were in. Think about your current architecture. If someone found your Cosmos DB connection string or your Azure Storage account name, what's stopping them from accessing it? If your answer is "just the access key" or "firewall rules," you're one leaked credential away from being in the headlines. So what to do: Azure Private Link + Network Isolation The most effective way to prevent public exposure is simple: remove public internet access entirely. This is where Azure Private Link becomes your architectural foundation. With Azure Private Link, you can create a private endpoint inside your Azure Virtual Network (VNet) that becomes the exclusive gateway to your Azure services. Your Cosmos DB, Storage Accounts, Azure OpenAI Service, and other resources are completely removed from the public internet—they only respond to requests originating from within your VNet. Even if someone obtains your connection strings or access keys, they cannot use them without first gaining access to your private network. Implementation Overview: To implement Private Link for your AI chat system, you'll need to: Create an Azure Virtual Network (VNet) to host your private endpoints and application resources Configure private endpoints for each service (Cosmos DB, Storage, Azure OpenAI, Key Vault) Set up private DNS zones to automatically resolve service URLs to private IPs within your VNet Disable public network access on all your Azure resources Deploy your application inside the VNet using Azure App Service with VNet integration, Azure Container Apps, or Azure Kubernetes Service Verify isolation by attempting to access resources from outside the VNet (should fail) You can configure this through the Azure Portal, Azure CLI, ARM templates, or infrastructure-as-code tools like Terraform. The Azure documentation provides step-by-step guides for each service type. Figure 1: Private Link Architecture for AI Chat Systems Private endpoints ensure all data access occurs within the Azure Virtual Network, blocking public internet access to databases, storage, and AI services. 2. Protecting Conversation Data with Encryption at Rest The Problem: When Backend Databases Become Treasure Troves Network isolation solves the problem of external access, but what happens when attackers breach your perimeter through other means? What if a malicious insider gains access? What if there's a misconfiguration in your cloud environment? The data sitting in your databases becomes the ultimate prize. In February 2025, OmniGPT suffered a catastrophic breach where attackers accessed the backend database and extracted personal data from 30,000 users including emails, phone numbers, API keys, and over 34 million lines of conversation logs. The exposed data included links to uploaded files containing sensitive credentials, billing details, and API keys. These weren't prompt injection attacks. These weren't DDoS incidents. These were failures to encrypt sensitive data at rest. When attackers accessed the storage layer, they found everything in readable format—a goldmine of personal information, conversations, and credentials. Think about the conversations your AI chat system stores. Customer support queries that might include account numbers. Healthcare chatbots discussing symptoms and medications. HR assistants processing employee grievances. If someone gained unauthorized (or even authorized) access to your database today, would they be reading plaintext conversations? What to do: Azure Cosmos DB with Customer-Managed Keys The fundamental defense against data exposure is encryption at rest—ensuring that data stored on disk is encrypted and unreadable without the proper decryption keys. Even if attackers gain physical or logical access to your database files, the data remains protected as long as they don't have access to the encryption keys. But who controls those keys? With platform-managed encryption (the default in most cloud services), the cloud provider manages the encryption keys. While this protects against many threats, it doesn't protect against insider threats at the provider level, compromised provider credentials, or certain compliance scenarios where you must prove complete key control. Customer-Managed Keys (CMK) solve this by giving you complete ownership and control of the encryption keys. You generate, store, and manage the keys in your own key vault. The cloud service can only decrypt your data by requesting access to your keys—access that you control and can revoke at any time. If your keys are deleted or access is revoked, even the cloud provider cannot decrypt your data. Azure makes this easy with Azure Key Vault integrated with Azure Cosmos DB. The architecture uses "envelope encryption" where your data is encrypted with a Data Encryption Key (DEK), and that DEK is itself encrypted with your Key Encryption Key (KEK) stored in Key Vault. This provides layered security where even if the database is compromised, the data remains encrypted with keys only you control. While we covered PII detection and redaction using Azure Text Analytics in Part 1—which prevents sensitive data from being stored in the first place—encryption at rest with Customer-Managed Keys provides an additional, powerful layer of protection. In fact, many compliance frameworks like HIPAA, PCI-DSS, and certain government regulations explicitly require customer-controlled encryption for data at rest, making CMK not just a best practice but often a mandatory requirement for regulated industries. Implementation Overview: To implement Customer-Managed Keys for your chat history and vector storage: Create an Azure Key Vault with purge protection and soft delete enabled (required for CMK) Generate or import your encryption key in Key Vault (2048-bit RSA or 256-bit AES keys) Grant Cosmos DB access to Key Vault using a system-assigned or user-assigned managed identity Enable CMK on Cosmos DB by specifying your Key Vault key URI during account creation or update Configure the same for Azure Storage if you're storing embeddings or documents in Blob Storage Set up key rotation policies to automatically rotate keys on a schedule (recommended: every 90 days) Monitor key usage through Azure Monitor and set up alerts for unauthorized access attempts Figure 2: Envelope Encryption with Customer-Managed Keys User conversations are encrypted using a two-layer approach: (1) The AI Chat App sends plaintext messages to Cosmos DB, (2) Cosmos DB authenticates to Key Vault using Managed Identity to retrieve the Key Encryption Key (KEK), (3) Data is encrypted with a Data Encryption Key (DEK), (4) The DEK itself is encrypted with the KEK before storage. This ensures data remains encrypted even if the database is compromised, as decryption requires access to keys stored in your Key Vault. For AI chat systems in regulated industries (healthcare, finance, government), Customer-Managed Keys should be your baseline. The operational overhead is minimal with proper automation, and the compliance benefits are substantial. The entire process can be automated using Azure CLI, PowerShell, or infrastructure-as-code tools. For existing Cosmos DB accounts, enabling CMK requires creating a new account and migrating data. 3. Securing Vector Databases and Preventing Data Leakage The Problem: Vector Embeddings Are Data Too Vector databases are the backbone of modern RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) systems. They store embeddings—mathematical representations of your documents, conversations, and knowledge base—that allow your AI to retrieve relevant context for every user query. But here's what most developers don't realize: those vectors aren't just abstract numbers. They contain your actual data. A critical oversight in AI chat architectures is treating vector databases—or in our case, Cosmos DB collections storing embeddings—as less sensitive than traditional data stores. Whether you're using a dedicated vector database or storing embeddings in Cosmos DB alongside your chat history, these mathematical representations need the same rigorous security controls as the original text. In documented cases, shared vector databases inadvertently mixed data between two corporate clients. One client's proprietary information began surfacing in response to the other client's queries, creating a serious confidentiality breach in what was supposed to be a multi-tenant system. Even more concerning are embedding inversion attacks, where adversaries exploit weaknesses to reconstruct original source data from its vector representation—effectively reverse-engineering your documents from the mathematical embeddings. Think about what's in your vector storage right now. Customer support conversations. Internal company documents. Product specifications. Medical records. Legal documents. If you're running a multi-tenant system, are you absolutely certain that Company A can't retrieve Company B's data? Can you guarantee that embeddings can't be reverse-engineered to expose the original text? What to do: Azure Cosmos DB for MongoDB with Logical Partitioning and RBAC The security of vector databases requires a multi-layered approach that addresses both storage isolation and access control. Azure Cosmos DB for MongoDB provides native support for vector search while offering enterprise-grade security features specifically designed for multi-tenant architectures. Logical partitioning creates strict data boundaries within your database by organizing data into isolated partitions based on a partition key (like tenant_id or user_id). When combined with Role-Based Access Control (RBAC), you create a security model where users and applications can only access their designated partitions—even if they somehow gain broader database access. Implementation Overview: To implement secure multi-tenant vector storage with Cosmos DB: Enable MongoDB RBAC on your Cosmos DB account using the EnableMongoRoleBasedAccessControl capability Design your partition key strategy based on tenant_id, user_id, or organization_id for maximum isolation Create collections with partition keys that enforce tenant boundaries at the storage level Define custom RBAC roles that grant access only to specific databases and partition key ranges Create user accounts per tenant or service principal with assigned roles limiting their scope Implement partition-aware queries in your application to always include the partition key filter Enable diagnostic logging to track all vector retrieval operations with user identity Configure cross-region replication for high availability while maintaining partition isolation Figure 3: Multi-Tenant Data Isolation with Partition Keys and RBAC Azure Cosmos DB enforces tenant isolation through logical partitioning and Role-Based Access Control (RBAC). Each tenant's data is stored in separate partitions (Partition A, B, C) based on the partition key (tenant_id). RBAC acts as a security gateway, validating every query to ensure users can only access their designated partition. Attempts to access other tenants' partitions are blocked at the RBAC layer, preventing cross-tenant data leakage in multi-tenant AI chat systems. Azure provides comprehensive documentation and CLI tools for configuring RBAC roles and partition strategies. The key is to design your partition scheme before loading data, as changing partition keys requires data migration. Beyond partitioning and RBAC, implement these AI-specific security measures: Validate embedding sources: Authenticate and continuously audit external data sources before vectorizing to prevent poisoned embeddings Implement similarity search thresholds: Set minimum similarity scores to prevent irrelevant cross-context retrieval Use metadata filtering: Add security labels (classification levels, access groups) to vector metadata and enforce filtering Monitor retrieval patterns: Alert on unusual patterns like one tenant making queries that correlate with another tenant's data Separate vector databases per sensitivity level: Keep highly confidential vectors (PII, PHI) in dedicated databases with stricter controls Hash document identifiers: Use hashed references instead of plaintext IDs in vector metadata to prevent enumeration attacks For production AI chat systems handling multiple customers or sensitive data, Cosmos DB with partition-based RBAC should be your baseline. The combination of storage-level isolation and access control provides defense in depth that application-layer filtering alone cannot match. Bonus: Secure Logging and Monitoring for AI Chat Systems During development, we habitually log everything—full request payloads, user inputs, model responses, stack traces. It's essential for debugging. But when your AI chat system goes to production and starts handling real user conversations, those same logging practices become a liability. Think about what flows through your AI chat system: customer support conversations containing account numbers, healthcare queries discussing medical conditions, HR chatbots processing employee complaints, financial assistants handling transaction details. If you're logging full conversations for debugging, you're creating a secondary repository of sensitive data that's often less protected than your primary database. The average breach takes 241 days to identify and contain. During that time, attackers often exfiltrate not just production databases, but also log files and monitoring data—places where developers never expected sensitive information to end up. The question becomes: how do you maintain observability and debuggability without creating a security nightmare? The Solution: Structured Logging with PII Redaction and Azure Monitor The key is to log metadata, not content. You need enough information to trace issues and understand system behavior without storing the actual sensitive conversations. Azure Monitor with Application Insights provides enterprise-grade logging infrastructure with built-in features for sanitizing sensitive data. Combined with proper application-level controls, you can maintain full observability while protecting user privacy. What to Log in Production AI Chat Systems: DO Log DON'T Log Request timestamps and duration Full user messages or prompts User IDs (hashed or anonymized) Complete model responses Session IDs (hashed) Raw embeddings or vectors Model names and versions used Personally identifiable information (PII) Token counts (input/output) Retrieved document content Embedding dimensions and similarity scores Database connection strings or API keys Retrieved document IDs (not content) Complete stack traces that might contain data Error codes and exception types Performance metrics (latency, throughput) RBAC decisions (access granted/denied) Partition keys accessed Rate limiting triggers Final Remarks: Building Compliant, Secure AI Systems Throughout this two-part series, we've addressed the complete security spectrum for AI chat systems—from protecting the LLM itself to securing the underlying infrastructure. But there's a broader context that makes all of this critical: compliance and regulatory requirements. AI chat systems operate within an increasingly complex regulatory landscape. The EU AI Act, which entered force on August 1, 2024, became the first comprehensive AI regulation by a major regulator, assigning applications to risk categories with high-risk systems subject to specific legal requirements. The NIS2 Directive further requires that AI model endpoints, APIs, and data pipelines be protected to prevent breaches and ensure secure deployment. Beyond AI-specific regulations, chat systems must comply with established data protection frameworks depending on their use case. GDPR mandates data minimization, user rights to erasure and data portability, 72-hour breach notification, and EU data residency for systems serving European users. Healthcare chatbots must meet HIPAA requirements including encryption, access controls, 6-year audit log retention, and Business Associate Agreements. Systems processing payment information fall under PCI-DSS, requiring cardholder data isolation, encryption, role-based access controls, and regular security testing. B2B SaaS platforms typically need SOC 2 Type II compliance, demonstrating security controls over data availability, confidentiality, continuous monitoring, and incident response procedures. Azure's architecture directly supports these compliance requirements through its built-in capabilities. Private Link enables data residency by keeping traffic within specified Azure regions while supporting network isolation requirements. Customer-Managed Keys provide the encryption controls and key ownership mandated by HIPAA and PCI-DSS. Cosmos DB's partition-based RBAC creates the access controls and audit trails required across all frameworks. Azure Monitor and diagnostic logging satisfy audit and monitoring requirements, while Azure Policy and Microsoft Purview automate compliance enforcement and reporting. The platform's certifications and compliance offerings (including HIPAA, PCI-DSS, SOC 2, and GDPR attestations) provide the documentation and third-party validation that auditors require, significantly reducing the operational burden of maintaining compliance. Further Resources: Azure Private Link Documentation Azure Cosmos DB Customer-Managed Keys Azure Key Vault Overview Azure Cosmos DB Role-Based Access Control Azure Monitor and Application Insights Azure Policy for Compliance Microsoft Purview Data Governance Azure Security Benchmark Stay secure, stay compliant, and build responsibly.
Blogsite AI Voice Answer machine
Hi all, I wanted to quickly to write to show how I thought about building a system based on Azure to allow my blogsite to answer questions about a blog post that a reader may suddenly have in their mind while reading through the post to extend learning. The basic flow is: -User loads a blog post -On load, the page populates 3 buttons a third of the way in the page, each with randomly AI generated questions related to the page that a reader might ask about the page content -On clicking a button, the question is answered through voice, with the answer being 'just' enough to answer the question without being over-bearing (at least that's my feeling!) The architecture is constructed as the following: I wrote in full on how I did this for my blog here : https://www.imaginarium.dev/voice-ai-for-blog/ I wanted to perhaps hear on if I was missing anything here on the design, security considerations particularly on the Azure side? Any ways to improve on the AI Voice implementation? I'm using the Azure OpenAI neural voices at the moment. Gemini voices lately are really good too!! I even thought about using a custom neural voice of my own but I ran into issues when trying to do that within Azure due to not having an enterprise subscription readily available to be allowed this capability. Thoughts?
