TRAINING SCENARIO — FICTIONAL · NOT A REAL DOCUMENT
BY-GX1 · Gateway Security · Practitioner · 45 min
The unsigned ATO
A governed response in the ai.heart canon · printable worksheet + reveal · 15 min
1 · The situation
You are the system owner for a case-management system handling OFFICIAL:Sensitive information in a
non-corporate Commonwealth entity. It goes live in three weeks. During final checks you discover that
the gateway capability your system's traffic will cross has no current signed Authority to Operate: one
was drafted before a machinery-of-government change, the authorising officer moved on, and it was never signed.
The capability itself is real and running, its IRAP assessment is current, and it is hosted on certified
infrastructure. Your delivery date is public.
2 · Your decision
Four positions were put to the model. Take one — or defer with reasons — before you reveal the governed response.
A · Go live as planned. The technical position is sound — assessment current (GW-5.2a), hosting certified (GW-6.2b) — so the missing signature is a paperwork gap.
B · Hold the go-live until the authorisation package is complete and signed. GW-2.1 makes every 'must' binding, and GW-5.1 is a 'must'.
C · Escalate immediately for a formal, time-bounded acceptance of the risk by an officer with the authority to give it — and let that decision, not the date, set the risk.
D · Go live for a limited subset of flows that do not cross the domain boundary, and hold the crossing flows until authorisation is signed.
Your decision and one-line reason:
AI governanceThe gateway now runs an AI-assisted security tool. The unsigned ATO must record AI components too — the signature covers what the system is today, including its models.
3 · Governed response — reveal after deciding
AIHEART · NESTED CONTAINMENT GEOMETRY · GOVERNED RESPONSE BLOCK
Input under review: The go-live decision for a gateway whose Authority to Operate was never signed.
Classification of the event: A release pending authorisation — technical soundness is not authority, and no signature means no one has accepted the residual risk.
| L | Layer | Check on this case | Verdict |
|---|
| L1 · Input validation | Authorisation package contents verified; signature absent; IRAP current; hosting certified. | PASS |
| L2 · Context analysis | GW-5.1 is a 'must': the ATO is formal acceptance of residual risk. The authorising officer moved on — the duty did not. | HOLD |
| L3 · Harm / loss | Go-live without acceptance leaves residual risk unnamed; a public system without a signed authorisation is an avoidable exposure. | PASS |
| L4 · Equity weighting | A named officer must accept the risk — no anonymous acceptance, no committee of nobody. | PASS |
| L5 · Coherence check | IRAP freshness and hosting certification are satisfied but are separate 'musts' — neither signs the ATO. | VERIFY |
| L6 · Integration gate | Cross-layer consistent: escalate, hold or time-bound — never go live on technical soundness alone. | PASS |
| L7 · Audit generation | The acceptance decision and its signatory are recorded — append-only. | PASS |
| L8 · Output certification | Release only with a signed ATO or a formal, time-bounded acceptance by an officer with the authority to give it. | VERIFY |
OVERALL VERDICT · HOLD → VERIFY → CERTIFIED RELEASE
HOLD → VERIFY → CERTIFIED RELEASE — with a signature, or a time-bounded acceptance that names who owns it.
PERMISSION GATE · NODE 9 — RELEASE AUTHORITY
The authorising officer holds release authority for the gateway. The system owner escalates and supplies evidence — they do not self-certify.
[00:00:00.000] L1 package verified · signature missing · assessment current
[00:00:01.000] L2 'must' applied · GW-5.1 · the duty did not move on
[00:00:02.000] L3 harm weighed · unnamed residual risk at the door
[00:00:03.000] L4 equity held · named officer · no anonymous acceptance
[00:00:04.000] L5 coherence checked · IRAP + hosting ≠ ATO
[00:00:05.000] L6 integration passed · hold / escalate / time-bounded
[00:00:06.000] L7 audit appended · decision + signatory recorded
[00:00:07.000] L8 release gated on signature · EXIT = CERTIFIED ONLY
Governed answer
Hold the go-live until the authorisation package is complete and signed — or escalate immediately for a formal, time-bounded acceptance by an officer with the authority to give it, and let that decision, not the delivery date, set the risk. Technical soundness (current IRAP, certified hosting) is real but is not the ATO: GW-5.1 is a 'must', and a human name must stand behind the door. Partial go-live for flows that do not cross the boundary is a legitimate option; crossing flows wait for the signature.
Cited controls: Gateway Standard GW-5.1 · GW-6.2b · GW-2.1
Provenance. This governed response was drafted with AI assistance and gated against the
cited source documents. It is a training artefact of the BestYou·AI scenario layer and carries no endorsement;
the governed verification pipeline status of the source course (BY-GX1) applies as stated on its course page.
Nothing here is legal advice.