AI Governance Proxy Architecture Review: Approval Requirements for Enterprise AI Agents and LLM Traffic
An Architecture Review Board should approve an AI governance proxy only when the proposer can show, with testable evidence, that it sits in the enforced traffic path, applies policy to model calls, agent tool calls, and MCP traffic, binds each action to an agent identity with least-privilege permissions, produces exportable audit records, fails in a documented way, protects the data it handles, and has a named operational owner.
Approval concerns for an AI governance proxy
The review covers five concerns. Each one is stated below as a question the board should be able to answer with evidence.
| Concern | Review question |
|---|---|
| Placement and topology | Is the proxy in the enforced path, and can it be bypassed? |
| Policy and tool-call control | What does enforcement cover, and how is it tested? |
| Identity and access | Is every action tied to an agent identity and least privilege? |
| Audit and data handling | What is recorded, stored, and exported? |
| Resilience and ownership | How does it fail, and who runs it? |
Placement and topology: show the proxy is in the path
The proposer should show, with testable evidence, that the proxy sits in the enforced traffic path.
Review questionIs the proxy in the enforced path, and can it be bypassed?
Policy enforcement scope and tool-call control
The proxy should apply policy to model calls, agent tool calls, and MCP traffic, and the proposer should be able to show how that enforcement is tested.
Review questionWhat does enforcement cover, and how is it tested?
Identity and access: bind every action to an agent
Each action should be bound to an agent identity with least-privilege permissions.
Review questionIs every action tied to an agent identity and least privilege?
Audit, observability, and data handling
The proxy should produce exportable audit records and protect the data it handles.
Review questionWhat is recorded, stored, and exported?
Reliability, integration, and operational ownership
The proxy should fail in a documented way, and a named operational owner should be responsible for running it.
Review questionHow does it fail, and who runs it?
Evidence request list for vendors and internal teams
Use this list to request the evidence behind each approval criterion.
- PlacementEvidence that the proxy sits in the enforced traffic path, and an answer to whether it can be bypassed.
- Policy coverageEvidence that policy is applied to model calls, agent tool calls, and MCP traffic, and how that enforcement is tested.
- Agent identity and least privilegeEvidence that each action is bound to an agent identity with least-privilege permissions.
- Audit recordsEvidence of what is recorded, stored, and exported, including exportable audit records.
- Failure behaviorDocumentation of how the proxy fails.
- Data protectionEvidence of how the proxy protects the data it handles.
- Operational ownershipThe name of the operational owner who runs the proxy.
Turn these criteria into your review process
Discuss how runtime policy enforcement, agent identity, and audit logging can be assessed against your Architecture Review Board requirements.
Talk to an Expert