A vendor returns a security questionnaire with every important box checked. The buyer still does not know what happens when a credential is revoked during a task, an approver is absent, or a requested export contains sensitive data. The form collected claims, and the team needs evidence for the workflow it plans to buy.

Keep the questionnaire where procurement requires it, and add a short demonstration plan tied to the proposed use. Ask the vendor to perform a few ordinary operations and awkward transitions using synthetic data. Broad assurances become observable behavior without an open-ended audit.

The MCP enterprise pain-point catalog includes administrators' difficulty seeing connections. Turn that concern into a request: show the connections used by this workflow and who can remove them.

Begin with the purchase scope#

Describe the first business process, participating people, tools, data categories, and external actions. State whether the company brings an existing agent, buys an agent, or uses both. The vendor should explain which components it operates and which remain your responsibility.

A procurement answer can be accurate and still apply to the wrong offering: managed service terms differ from a customer-operated arrangement, and a model-provider setting differs by account or endpoint. Put the exact proposed service and agreement next to every material answer.

Choose demonstrations by consequence. A read-only research pilot needs strong evidence about access and data handling. A workflow that changes customer terms also needs approval and destination-result evidence.

Demonstration	What the buyer learns
Revoke a test connection	Which new and queued actions stop
Deny a proposed write	Whether the tested path respects the decision
Change a proposal after approval	Whether approval still matches execution
Export a completed task	Whether another reader can reconstruct it
Delete a test artifact	Which copies disappear and under what schedule
Trigger a spending boundary	Whether the system alerts, blocks, or defers

Use a single synthetic workflow#

Take an invented account renewal. The agent reads a synthetic contract, drafts a brief, proposes a date change, waits for approval, and attempts the update.

Run the ordinary path first, then:

Revoke the connection before execution.
Restore access and deny the proposal.
Approve a proposal and modify a material field before the write.

Ask the operator to explain each observed outcome, including any manual step.

A seller can state that a requested behavior belongs to the customer's system or contract. Record that dependency and assign an owner, since an unexamined gap is the problem and shared responsibility is fine.

Separate demonstrations from contractual evidence#

A live test cannot prove every commercial promise. Retention commitments, support response terms, incident notification, subprocessors, and permitted deployment arrangements need current written material.

For provider-specific data behavior, consult the OpenAI data controls guide or the applicable provider's equivalent, then confirm the account arrangement. A consumer subscription and an API service do not share the same terms.

Label each answer as demonstrated, documented, dependent on customer configuration, or unresolved. This identifies the next action better than a percentage-complete questionnaire. An unresolved retention term belongs with procurement, and an untested revocation path belongs with the technical owner.

Make exceptions usable#

Some requirements can be narrowed. If exporting a particular sensitive payload is unacceptable, the initial workflow can retain an identifier and a controlled source reference instead. If an action cannot be safely automated, the pilot can produce a draft for the existing manual process. Write these changes into the purchase scope.

Other gaps should stop that use from starting. A vendor that cannot explain where the proposed data is processed leaves the buyer without a necessary fact. Name the missing answer and its owner.

For Deixic, use enterprise procurement, Trust, and the existing-agent path to frame the proposed arrangement.

The result is a short evidence packet: scope, observed behavior, current documents, customer responsibilities, and remaining decisions.