AI-
LIT
LIT
Executive
crisis simulation
crisis simulation
Your leadership works through an AI incident before it happens.
THREATELLIGENT
AI Governance Under Pressure.
Rotate your device to explore.THREATELLIGENT
AI crisis
simulation
and training for attorneys and senior leadership.
So the people with fiduciary responsibility have a defensible AI security strategy before, during and after an incident.
Scroll to explore
AI-
SALT
SALT
AI security and
liability training
liability training
Your attorneys and security team learn to protect the people with fiduciary responsibility, together.
After an AI incident, the fight is attrition.
On Tuesday your AI agent did something nobody authorized.
By Friday you haven't slept, the board wants answers you don't have, and the part that costs you personally was never in any training exercise you ran.
Then the investigations start, each on its own clock.
The courts.A lawsuit over one AI hiring tool, filed in 2023, is still in discovery, and the court ordered the vendor to disclose which employers used it. A class action over AI-driven insurance denials, filed the same year, still hasn't reached trial.
The insurer.Insurers pay by the policy. Before a claim pays, they investigate whether the organization met its terms and told the truth on its application. One insurer went to court over a security control a company claimed it had, and the policy ended up void.
The regulator.In 2024, a state attorney general used consumer protection law to settle with a healthcare AI company over its accuracy claims.
Every approval, email and meeting note gets examined. Being right doesn't end it. The record does. When the record can't show due care, the fight outgrows the company: in 2026, shareholders sued the directors of Adobe, Microsoft and Nvidia over their AI strategy. Drawn out long enough, the cost becomes a business continuity problem, and careers go with it.
Incident training hasn't kept up.
Incident plans and exercises were built for a world where a person made every decision. AI agents now approve, send, move money and change records on their own, at machine speed and inside their vendors. When a vendor's AI fails, its customers can be drawn into the case.
Traditional preparation also misses the legal question. In 2020, a federal court ordered Capital One to hand its breach forensic report to the plaintiffs, because of how the forensic firm had been hired before the breach.
Leadership is deciding with half the picture.
Security leaders see the risk. Attorneys see the liability. Few people see both. Controls presented as risk reduction get weighed against cost, and counsel is called for the contract or the incident, after the decisions are made.
An attorney trained in security, involved from the start, puts security, risk and liability in front of leadership at once. Only counsel can advise whether the organization's position holds up against liability. An AI tool can't testify, and it holds no license.
Attorneys who don't know the security side get cautious, and decisions stall waiting on their sign-off. Trained in security and governance, they move with the business instead of slowing it down.
Too few attorneys know how to help a client build that record before an incident. Too few security professionals know how to write control recommendations tied to the legal lens.
Why we built this
In the executive tabletops we attended, legal questions were settled by a roll of the dice. There was never a lawyer in the room. So we spent two years in a joint venture with a cybersecurity law firm, building security programs and running tabletops alongside incident response teams.
Threatelligent is a cybersecurity governance, risk and compliance firm. We specialize in executive tabletop exercises and AI governance training with a legal lens.
How it works
01
Schedule a discovery call.
02
Pressure-test with AI-LIT.
03
Close the gap with AI-SALT.
04
Build the capability, or hire us to work with your leadership team.
05
Run AI-LIT again and see what changed.
Two programs that work together
AI-LIT, AI Liability Implications Tabletop
Know your lane. Know the handoff.
Some decisions should stop until the right expertise is in the room.
AI-LIT exposes the moments when a technical answer is not a legal answer, a policy is not proof of coverage, and an operational shortcut can become tomorrow's discovery problem.
Participants see where counsel belongs, where security evidence matters, where authority sits, and where assumptions need to be challenged before somebody signs or speaks for the organization.
Resource allocation becomes incident capability.
The pressure starts after the budget decision.
Organizations make tradeoffs long before an incident. AI-LIT lets the team experience the later consequence of those choices. Two teams can face the same scenario and leave in very different positions because judgment, priorities, advice and resource allocation change the trajectory.
Same pressure. Simulated company.
Learn inside the scenario without putting your employer's incident plan on the table.
Threatelligent provides the company, briefing and operating materials. You take a role, work with a team and make the decisions that role requires as the scenario escalates. Written pre-read materials are provided in advance. An optional orientation covers the rules and mechanics before the exercise.
Lessons learned.
The point is not to “win.” It is to see what you could not see before.
You leave with a lessons-learned debrief, an overall simulated-team performance report and a clearer picture of what needs attention next.
Private enterprise exercises.
Pressure-test your organization, not the sample company.
Private engagements are customized to the organization and available as half-day, full-day and two-day exercises. Scope, participants, scenario design and reporting are set during discovery.
AI-SALT, AI Security and Liability Training
The system can act. Your organization still has to answer for the decision.
AI-enabled tools can approve, send, change records, and influence people across a business and its vendors. A policy may authorize their use. It cannot, by itself, show what was permitted, tested, monitored, or escalated when the system behaved unexpectedly.
The record begins before the incident.
Can your team show how governance worked?
When a decision is challenged, the questions become concrete: Who approved the use case? Which vendor and data were involved? What changed after testing? Who accepted the remaining risk? When did counsel need to review it?
AI-SALT teaches participants to connect the policy to the people, controls, and evidence that put it into practice.
Attorneys need the operating facts. Security leaders need the legal context.
Counsel does not have to become an engineer. Security does not have to practice law. Each needs to know what to ask, what to provide, and when a decision must move to the right specialist.
AI-SALT follows those handoffs across leadership, legal, security, privacy, engineering, procurement, compliance, and vendors.
Two-day experience.
Find your lane, the people and evidence you depend on, the gaps in the decision chain, and the choice to build capability internally or bring in help.
Six-month pathway.
Return to the work through repeated practice in AI governance strategy and consultation. Develop the judgment to coordinate the legal and security inputs as conditions change.
AI-SALT builds the capability. AI-LIT tests the capability under pressure.
AI governance consulting
Build the capability internally, or hire us to work with your leadership team.
When you want to build the capability internally, AI-LIT and AI-SALT help identify the gaps, develop the people and pressure-test what you've built.
When you'd rather hire, Threatelligent works with your leadership team, from AI governance to your full security control program.
Other firms can write policies and procedures. We bring the legal lens. The same records that tell your security team where controls belong also document your due care, so leadership can show what it knew, decided and did.