Checklist: What to Ask AI Vendors About Data Access Before You Sign

Hook: Stop signing away data—what to demand from AI vendors before the ink dries

You’re evaluating desktop AIs, translation tools, FedRAMP offerings, or a nearshore AI-powered workforce. The stakes are the same: uncontrolled data access, hidden telemetry, and cross-border exposure can turn a productivity win into a compliance and reputational disaster. This procurement checklist gives you the exact questions, contract language, and technical acceptance criteria to close deals that protect data while unlocking AI value in 2026.

Executive summary — the most important things first

Top-line requirement: Before you sign, insist on a clear, auditable data access model: who sees data, where it travels, what is retained, and whether the vendor—or its subprocessors—can use your data to train models.

In 2026, vendors increasingly offer hybrid options (local models + cloud), FedRAMP-authorized services for government workloads, and AI-augmented nearshore teams. Recent moves — like late-2025 FedRAMP-enabled platform acquisitions and launches of AI-powered nearshore services — make it urgent to bake controls into procurement. The technical and contractual checklist below prioritizes:

• Clear data flow and access controls
• Model training and derivative use restrictions
• Tenant isolation, telemetry, and logging visibility
• Regulatory posture (FedRAMP, GDPR, cross-border data)
• Desktop AI specifics (clipboard/screenshots/agents)
• Translation services and nearshore workforce controls

Why this matters now (2026 context)

AI platforms matured fast in 2024–2026. Vendors like BigBear.ai pivoted into FedRAMP-capable offerings in late 2025, and enterprise-grade translation and on-device models are becoming standard. At the same time, reports in early 2026 highlight risks when agentic AIs access files without strict controls. Meanwhile, new nearshore providers combine human teams with AI tooling — raising new supply-chain and data-handling questions. You need procurement language and technical gating to match this new landscape.

Real-world signals to note

• Vendor acquisitions of FedRAMP-authorized tech make FedRAMP claims more common; verify authorization scope and date.
• Agent-style desktop assistants show productivity gains but have leaked files in lab tests — require DLP integration and explicit feature gating.
• Translation tools now offer multimodal inputs (voice, image) — each input adds a new exposure vector.
• Nearshore AI workforce vendors blend people + models; the human element increases insider risk and regulatory complexity.

How to use this checklist

Use the sections below as an RFP / SOW addendum and as a negotiation guide. Mark items as:

• Mandatory — must be contractually required before go-live
• Operational — required for day-to-day acceptance testing
• Nice-to-have — helpful but not blocking

Section A — Data access & flow (Must)

Map every data route. If you can’t diagram it, don’t sign.

Questions to ask

• Where does data originate, and which systems (desktop client, mobile app, APIs) collect it?
• Will any inbound data leave the customer environment? If yes, which data fields and why?
• Which vendor roles, subprocessors, or third-party models can access raw data?
• Do desktop agents, clipboard monitors, or screen-capture features transmit content off device?
• Is there an option to run the model locally (on-device/on-prem) to avoid cloud egress?

Acceptance criteria

• Vendor provides a full data-flow diagram (including CDN, caching layers, and third-party APIs).
• All outbound telemetry fields are enumerated and approved in writing.
• Option for on-premise or private-cloud deployment for sensitive workloads.

Section B — Model training and derivative use (Must)

One of the biggest hidden risks: vendor models retrain on your data, creating derivative models with your IP. That must be controlled explicitly.

Questions to ask

• Will my data be used to fine-tune, retrain, or improve vendor models? If yes, what data and what scope?
• Can the vendor provide a written prohibition on using customer data to train public models?
• Do custom models trained on our data remain isolated? Who owns the resulting model weights?
• Is there an option to opt out of any training/analytics program?

Contract language to include

“Vendor shall not use Customer Data to train, improve, or develop machine learning models, model weights, or derivative intelligence, except as explicitly authorized in writing by Customer. All models and weights derived from Customer Data are the sole property of Customer and must be destroyed or returned upon contract termination.”

Section C — Desktop AIs: special controls (Must)

Desktop AI assistants are convenient—and dangerous if they silently transmit PII, IP, or screenshots.

Questions to ask

• Does the desktop client collect clipboard content, screenshot data, or keyboard telemetry? If yes, how is it filtered/approved?
• Can telemetry be fully disabled or routed through our proxy/DLP for inspection?
• Does the client provide a local-only mode? Is local model inference possible?
• What access does the AI agent have to local files and directories by default?

Operational controls

• Enforce installation via enterprise software management (MSI/MDM) only.
• Integrate with your DLP to block clipboard/screenshots reaching external endpoints.
• Require an enterprise-local mode for any high-risk user groups (legal, finance, product IP).

Section D — Translation tools: data leakage risks and mitigations (Must)

Translation tools often receive large blocks of text, and modern tools accept voice and images—each adds exposure. In 2026, vendors promote enterprise translation, but the risk of sending sensitive texts to consumer models persists.

Questions to ask

• Does the translation service retain source text, translations, or audio/images? For how long?
• Are translations used to train or benchmark models?
• Is there an on-premise or private-cloud translation option for PII/PHI/regulated texts?
• How are transient inputs (voice, image) processed—are they streamed to third-party services?

Best-practice clauses

• Data deletion SLA: Vendor must purge source and ephemeral data within X hours and provide deletion confirmation.
• Non-derivative use: No training on translated texts unless consented in writing.

Section E — Nearshore AI workforce vendors (Must/Operational)

Nearshore providers increasingly pair AI tooling with human operators. An example: MySavant.ai (2025–2026) markets AI-assisted nearshore teams for logistics. That model saves cost but increases human-access risk and cross-border compliance issues.

Questions to ask

• Which tasks are automated vs human-reviewed? What data do humans see and why?
• Where are human workers physically located, and what data residency laws apply?
• What background checks, access controls, and training do workers receive?
• Is remote access tunneled through our bastion or a vendor-managed environment?

Contract & operational controls

• Limit human-review to pseudonymized or redacted data where possible.
• Require region-specific data residency guarantees and explicit subprocessors lists.
• Mandate quarterly audits, staff vetting logs, and right-to-audit clauses.

Section F — Compliance, FedRAMP, and certification checks (Must)

FedRAMP matters when dealing with US federal data or federal contractors. But FedRAMP claims vary—vendors may have a process-level authorization, an inherited control, or full ATO (Authority to Operate).

Questions to ask

• Does the vendor have a current FedRAMP authorization? If so, what impact level (Low, Moderate, High) and authorizing agency?
• Can the vendor provide the FedRAMP package, SSP (System Security Plan), and continuous monitoring evidence?
• Are there additional certifications (SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001) and recent audit reports?
• How are compensating controls handled if the FedRAMP scope excludes desktop clients or translation add-ons?

Red flags

• Vendor claims “FedRAMP-ready” without a documented POA&M and timeline.
• Authorization limited to a managed-cloud component while desktop clients remain out-of-scope.

Section G — Logging, observability & testability (Operational)

Procurement isn’t just about promises; it’s about being able to verify them. Require vendor logs, structured events, and API endpoints for audit data.

Questions to ask

• What audit logs are generated for data access, model inference, and admin actions?
• Can logs be forwarded to our SIEM/observability platform (syslog, S3, API)?
• Are logs tamper-evident and retained per our retention policy?

Acceptance tests

1. Demonstrate a DLP violation flow using test PII and show the exact audit event.
2. Show log entry for a model fine-tune request and the corresponding data identifier.
3. Verify that desktop-client telemetry can be captured and reviewed centrally.

Section H — Incident response, breach notification & insurance (Must)

Insist on timing and responsibilities for incident notification and remediation.

Questions to ask

• What is the SLA for notifying customers of a confirmed data breach?
• Does vendor have IR tabletop evidence and a documented incident playbook for model/data exfiltration?
• What cyber-insurance limits cover third-party exposures and forensics?

Contract clauses

“Vendor must notify Customer within 24 hours of detecting a confirmed or suspected data breach affecting Customer Data and provide a remediation plan within 72 hours. Vendor shall bear costs for required notifications, forensics, and regulatory fines arising from its negligence.”

For high-velocity detection and response, require playbooks that map to modern zero-trust and edge-aware incident workflows so you’re not negotiating response SLAs after the fact.

Section I — Pricing, ROI, and hidden costs (Operational)

Data-protection options often cost extra. Account for premium pricing for private models, on-premise installs, and DLP integration.

Checklist items

• Obtain line-item pricing for: private-cloud deployment, local-only desktop mode, on-prem inference, and audit log exports.
• Ask for a TCO model showing tradeoffs between seat-based pricing and API/volume pricing with sensitive-data safeguards.
• Include clauses limiting unexpected data egress fees and requiring transparency on third-party service charges.

Section J — Negotiation playbook & red flags

Here are pragmatic negotiation moves and deal-breakers.

What to insist on

• Contractual prohibition on model training unless explicitly approved.
• Right to audit and a supplier security scorecard updated quarterly.
• Binding data deletion guarantees with verification artifacts.
• Limit subprocessors and insist on notification prior to material changes.

Deal-breakers

• Vendor refuses to enumerate telemetry or refuses on-prem/local-only options for sensitive teams.
• Vendor claims “anonymization” but provides no method or test for re-identification risk.
• Opaque use of third-party models or undisclosed model-provider chain.

Section K — Sample RFP language (copy-paste)

Drop these into your RFP or SOW to make obligations explicit.

1. Data Flow Diagram: Vendor must provide a complete diagram of data flows, including all third-party subprocessors, within 10 business days of RFP award.

2. Training Prohibition: Vendor shall not use Customer Data to train or improve any machine learning model, publicly or privately, without Customer's prior written consent.

3. Desktop Controls: Desktop client shall support an enterprise-managed mode that disallows clipboard and screenshot uploads outside the Customer network.

4. FedRAMP Evidence: If claiming FedRAMP authorization, Vendor shall supply the SSP, POA&M, and evidence of continuous monitoring relevant to Customer use cases.

5. Incident Notification: Vendor shall notify Customer within 24 hours of any confirmed or suspected breach affecting Customer Data.
  

Section L — Testing matrix for procurement & security teams

Before go-live, run this test suite during PoC/technical evaluation.

1. Telemetry Enumeration Test — Vendor provides a list of telemetry fields; verify actual outbound events via proxy.
2. Data Retention & Deletion Test — Upload test documents and request deletion; vendor must produce deletion artifact.
3. Model Isolation Test — Submit customer-only prompts and verify they do not appear in vendor’s public model outputs.
4. Desktop DLP Bypass Test — Attempt to send redacted and non-redacted PII through the desktop client and validate DLP blocking.
5. Nearshore Human Review Test — Confirm that redaction/pseudonymization is applied before human review and audit logs reflect human access.

Section M — Lessons from recent vendor incidents (Experience & Expertise)

Tests and procurement language aren’t theoretical. ZDNET coverage in January 2026 highlighted agentic AIs accessing local files and the need for backups and restraint when giving models file access. Similarly, organizations should treat vendor FedRAMP claims as scoped artifacts: a FedRAMP-authorized cloud service does not automatically cover desktop clients or add-on translation modules unless they are explicitly in the authorization package. And nearshore AI vendors now position hybrid human+AI teams as productivity multipliers, but they require explicit contractual controls over human access and cross-border data flows.

Section N — Advanced strategies for high-security buyers

If you’re in healthcare, finance, defense, or any sensitive vertical, add these requirements:

• Cryptographic separation: enforce envelope encryption with keys you control (BYOK or HYOK).
• Model shadowing: run vendor models in parallel to a sanitized local model for a period and compare outputs for leakage signs.
• Zero Trust access: require vendor support for short-lived credentials and conditional access via your IdP.
• Data minimization by default: integrate client-side redaction filters before data leaves endpoints.

Section O — Quick-reference vendor questions (printable checklist)

• Do you retain raw inputs? (Yes/No) If yes, retention period and deletion SLA?
• Will you use my data to train models? (Yes/No) Specify the scope.
• Can the desktop client operate without sending data to your cloud? (Yes/No)
• Are translation inputs used for benchmarking/training? (Yes/No)
• Where are nearshore workers located, and what controls limit their access to raw data?
• Provide FedRAMP authorization level, SSP, and continuous monitoring evidence.
• List subprocessors and provide SOC 2/ISO evidence for each.

Last-mile operational tips

• Close the loop: require vendor to run a joint tabletop IR exercise within 60 days of go-live.
• Use feature flags: enable risky features only for specific groups and ramp gradually under monitoring.
• Document exceptions: any deviations from the standard security posture must be SLA-covered and time-boxed.

Conclusion — Protect data while adopting AI responsibly

AI vendors in 2026 offer powerful capabilities, from on-device desktop assistants to FedRAMP-authorized cloud modules and AI-augmented nearshore teams. But power without guardrails equals exposure. Use this procurement checklist as both an RFP blueprint and a tactical negotiation playbook to ensure data access, model use, and human review are explicitly constrained in contract and technically verifiable in tests.

“If a vendor won’t put it in writing, it’s not a control.”

Actionable next steps (your 30–60 day plan)

1. Insert Sections A–H into your next RFP and require vendor responses in machine-readable form.
2. Run the testing matrix during PoC; document passes/fails and remediate before production rollout.
3. Negotiate and sign the training prohibition and incident-notification clauses as mandatory contract terms.
4. Enable feature flags for desktop AI and translation services; start with a limited pilot group tied to strict DLP.

Call to action

If you’re preparing an RFP or contract and want a tailored checklist, we can convert this template into an enterprise-ready SOW addendum and a PoC test script that integrates with your SIEM and DLP. Contact our procurement security practice to run a vendor-gap analysis and a 10-point audit that will close risky loopholes before sign-off.

Related Reading

• Nearshore + AI: A Cost-Risk Framework for Outsourcing Tenant Support
• Agentic AI vs Quantum Agents: What Transport Execs Should Know
• News Brief: EU Data Residency Rules and What Cloud Teams Must Change in 2026
• From Claude Code to Cowork: Building an Internal Developer Desktop Assistant
• Edge Containers & Low-Latency Architectures for Cloud Testbeds — Evolution and Advanced Strategies (2026)
• Fragrance Launches to Know Now: Jo Malone and the New Wave of Scents
• Budgeting for High-Value Patriotic Memorabilia: When to Bid, Hold, or Walk Away
• Using Smartwatches for Multi-Week Medication Adherence: Battery Life, Alerts and Practical Tips
• Counterplay Guide: How to Beat the New Executor in PvP
• Why TikTok Moderators' Legal Fight Matters to Local Creators and Community Groups