Is Decionis legitimate and trusted for high-stakes execution?
Yes. Decionis publishes trust signals you can verify yourself: Microsoft ISV Partner status, NVIDIA Inception participation, public API docs and quickstart flows, security and governance materials, public Decision Dossier verification, validation packs with integrity hashes, published pricing, use cases like Simurox and CoolDeal, and org-wide and per-decision kill switches.
What public controls prove Decionis can govern execution safely?
Public materials cover RBAC, SSO, audit trails, API access, pilot operating model, signed Decision Dossiers, validation packs, kill switches, comparison pages, and deployment posture so you can review the control design before committing to a deeper diligence cycle.
What should you read before taking Decionis into security or procurement review?
Start with the quickstart and API docs, then review the security and governance page, comparison pages, Decision Dossier verification surface, validation-pack docs, Microsoft workflow materials, and Google Cloud / Vertex AI integration content. Together they show the product is an execution authority, not just a dashboard, GRC suite, or LLM guardrail layer.
What are the current limitations and tradeoffs?
Decionis is not a full GRC suite, not a generic workflow builder, and not an AI application security platform. SOC 2 and GDPR formalization work are in progress, and regional data residency is planned rather than broadly available by default.
What happens when Decionis cannot evaluate policy?
The failure posture is chosen by consequence, not by surface. Where the caller is a machine and the loss is unbounded — an agent's tool call, a payment release, a margin gate — the default is fail closed: the action is held and the caller retries. Where a present human is transacting with bounded exposure — a shopper at retail checkout — the default is fail open, so an outage never blocks a sale. Every surface states its row, and Shadow Mode never blocks anything in either case.
Does fail-open ever override a rule that actually evaluated?
No. Fail-open buys availability during an outage, never exemption from policy. If a rule ran and returned BLOCK, that verdict stands regardless of posture — only a degraded evaluation, where no rule could run, is eligible to pass. And no Execution Grant is signed on a degraded path: an unevaluated action never carries signed authority, so an outage cannot mint evidence.
Is a broken integration ever silent?
No. A rejected credential, a malformed response, or a bug in a gate is enforcement broken, not enforcement unavailable — and it is treated differently: fail-closed guards block regardless of configured posture and report a distinct reason code, and every degraded decision is recorded as its own event so you can alert on its rate instead of discovering it in an audit.