The promise of generative AI (genAI) and agentic AI is electrifying. From automating complex tasks to unlocking unprecedented creativity, these technologies are poised to redefine your enterprise landscape. But as a CIO, you know that with great power comes great responsibility — and significant risk. The headlines are already filled with cautionary tales of data breaches, biased outputs and compliance nightmares.

The truth is, without robust guardrails and a clear governance framework, the very innovations you champion could become your biggest liabilities. This isn’t about stifling innovation; it’s about channeling it responsibly, ensuring your AI initiatives drive value without compromising security, ethics or trust.

Let’s dive into the critical areas where you must lead the charge.

Guardrails & governance: Why they are necessary, but no longer sufficient for agents

Many in the industry are confusing the function of guardrails and thinking they’re a flimsy substitute for true oversight. This is a critical misconception that must be addressed. Guardrails and governance are not interchangeable; they are two essential parts of a single system of control.

Think of it this way:

• AI governance is the blueprint and the organization. It’s the framework of policies, roles, committees (like your AI review board) and processes that define what is acceptable, who is accountable and how you will monitor and audit all AI systems across the enterprise. Governance is the strategy and the chain of command.
• AI guardrails are the physical controls and the rules in the code. These are the technical mechanisms embedded directly into the AI system’s architecture, APIs and interfaces to enforce the governance policies in real-time. Guardrails are the enforcement layer.

While we must distinguish between governance (the overarching policy framework) and guardrails (technical, in-the-moment controls), the reality of agentic AI has revealed a critical flaw: current soft guardrails are failing catastrophically. These controls are often probabilistic, pattern-based or rely on LLM self-evaluation, which is easily bypassed by an agent’s core capabilities: autonomy and composability (the ability to chain tools and models).

Guardrail failure mode	Core flaw	CIO takeaway: Why static fails
PII/Moderation	Pattern Reliance & Shallow Filters	Fails when sensitive data is slightly obfuscated (e.g., using “SNN” instead of “SSN”) or harmful content is wrapped in code/leetspeak.
Hallucination/Jailbreak	Circular Confidence & Probabilistic Defense	Relies on one model to judge another’s truthfulness or intent. The defense is easily manipulated, as the system can be confidently wrong or tricked by multi-turn or encoded attacks.

The agent’s ability to choose an alternate, unguarded path renders simple static checks useless. Your imperative is to move from relying on these flawed, soft defenses to implementing continuous, deterministic control.

The path forward: Implementing continuous control

To address these systemic vulnerabilities, CIOs must take the following actions:

1. Mandate hard data boundaries: Replace the agent’s probabilistic PII detection with deterministic, non-LLM-based security tools (DLP, tokenization) enforced by your API gateway. This creates an un-bypassable security layer for all data entering or leaving the agent.
2. Shift to pre-execution governance: Require all agentic deployments to utilize an agent orchestration layer that performs a pre-execution risk assessment on every tool call and decision step. This continuous governance module checks the agent’s compliance before it executes a financial transaction or high-privilege API call.
3. Ensure forensic traceability: Implement a “Digital Ledger” approach for all agent actions. Every LLM call, parameter passed and reasoning step must be logged sequentially and immutably to allow for forensic reconstruction and accountability.

Data security: Your ‘private-by-default’ AI strategy

The fear of proprietary data leaking into public models is palpable and for good reason. Every piece of intellectual property inadvertently fed into a large language model (LLM) becomes a potential competitive disadvantage. This is where a “private-by-default” strategy becomes non-negotiable for your organization, a necessity widely discussed by KPMG in analyses such as The new rules of data governance in the age of generative AI.

This means you need to consider:

• Embracing private foundation models: For highly sensitive workloads, investing in or leveraging private foundation models hosted within your secure environment is paramount. This gives you ultimate control over the model, its training data and its outputs.
• Leveraging retrieval augmented generation (RAG) architectures: RAG is a game-changer. Instead of training a model directly on your entire private dataset, RAG systems allow the AI to retrieve relevant information from your secure, internal knowledge bases and then use a public or private LLM to generate a response. This keeps your sensitive data isolated while still providing contextually rich answers.
• Robust data anonymization and masking: For any data that must interact with external models, implement stringent anonymization and masking techniques. This minimizes the risk of personally identifiable information (PII) or sensitive business data being exposed.

Your goal isn’t just to prevent data leakage; it’s to build a resilient AI ecosystem that protects your most valuable assets from the ground up.

Explainability & auditability: The imperative for agentic AI

Generative AI creates; agentic AI acts. When an autonomous AI agent is making decisions, executing transactions or interacting with customers, the stakes escalate dramatically. Regulators, auditors and even internal stakeholders will demand to know why an agent took a particular action.

This necessitates a forensic level of explainability and auditability:

• Comprehensive decision logging: Every single decision, every parameter change, every data point considered by an AI agent must be meticulously logged. This isn’t just about output; it’s about the entire chain of reasoning.
• Clear audit trails: These logs must be easily accessible, searchable and structured to form a clear, human-readable audit trail. When an auditor asks how an AI agent processed a loan application, you should be able to trace every step, from input to final decision.
  • Agentic AI example: An agent is tasked with automating supplier payments. A key guardrail must be a transaction limit filter that automatically holds any payment over $100,000 for human approval. The corresponding governance policy requires that the log for that agent details the entire sequence of API calls, the exact rule that triggered the hold and the human who provided the override, creating a perfect audit trail.
• Transparency in agent design: The design and configuration of your AI agents should be documented and version-controlled. Understanding the rules, logic and external integrations an agent uses is crucial for diagnosing issues and ensuring compliance.

Ethical oversight: Nurturing responsible AI

Beyond security and compliance lies the profound ethical dimension of AI. Addressing this requires a proactive, human-centric approach:

• Establish an AI review board or center of excellence (CoE): This isn’t a suggestion; it’s a necessity. This multidisciplinary group, comprising representatives from legal, ethics, data science and business units, should be the conscience of your AI strategy, aligning with guidance found in resources like The CIO’s guide to AI governance. Their mandate is to:
  • Proactive bias detection: Scrutinize model training data for potential biases before deployment.
  • Fairness in agent design: Review the logic and rules governing AI agents to ensure they don’t inadvertently discriminate or produce unfair results.
  • Ethical guidelines & policies: Develop and enforce clear ethical guidelines for the use and deployment of all AI within the organization.
  • Ethical AI example: A new genAI model is deployed to screen job candidates. A technical guardrail is implemented as an output toxicity filter to block any language the model suggests that could be interpreted as discriminatory. The governance policy dictates that the AI review board must regularly audit the model’s screening outcomes to ensure the overall hiring rate for protected groups remains statistically unbiased.
• Human-in-the-loop mechanisms: For critical AI-driven decisions, ensure there’s always an opportunity for human review and override.
• Bias mitigation techniques: Invest in techniques like re-weighting training data and Explainable AI (XAI) tools to understand and reduce bias in your models.

Responsible AI isn’t a checkbox; it’s a continuous journey of introspection, vigilance and commitment.

The CIO’s leadership imperative

The deployment of genAI and agentic AI isn’t just an IT project; it’s a strategic transformation that touches every facet of the enterprise. As the CIO, you are uniquely positioned to lead this charge, not just as a technologist, but as a strategist, risk manager and ethical guardian.

By prioritizing a “private-by-default” data strategy, enforcing rigorous explainability and auditability for autonomous agents and establishing robust ethical oversight, you can unlock the full potential of AI while building an enterprise that is secure, compliant and profoundly responsible. The future of AI is bright, but only if you build it on a foundation of trust and accountability. Make sure your blueprints reflect that.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

토스(운영사 비바리퍼블리카)의 금융경영연구소 토스인사이트(Toss Insight)가 새로운 보고서 ‘마이데이터의 이해와 현황’을 발간했다고 밝혔다. 데이터가 경제활동의 핵심 자원으로 부상한 흐름 속에서 기업 중심의 데이터 관리 체계를 개인 중심으로 전환하는 ‘마이데이터(My Data)’ 제도의 형성과 발전 과정을 금융·산업·정책 관점에서 종합적으로 분석했다.

보고서는 마이데이터를 단순한 금융 서비스가 아닌 데이터 주권(data sovereignty)을 실질적으로 구현하는 새로운 거버넌스로 규정했다. 지난 2020년 데이터 3법 개정 이후 금융 분야를 중심으로 단기간 내 정착한 한국의 마이데이터 제도가 2025년 현재 비금융 분야로 확장되는 과정을 중심으로 제도의 성과와 한계를 균형 있게 검토했다. 또한 글로벌 주요국과의 정책 모델을 비교해 정부 주도형·민간 중심형·공공-민간 협력형 등 3가지 거버넌스 유형을 제시했다.

특히 보고서 집필팀은 한국형 마이데이터 제도의 성과로 ▲정보주체 권리 강화 ▲데이터 기반 산업 혁신 ▲금융 포용성 제고를 꼽았다. 동시에 ▲동의 절차의 효율화 ▲전송요구권 실효성 확보 ▲가명정보 활용 유연성 확대 ▲데이터 연계 구조 고도화 ▲수익모델의 지속가능성 등 향후 과제도 함께 짚었다. 이런 진단을 바탕으로 정부와 민간이 협력해 데이터 주권과 활용이 공존하는 ‘균형적 데이터 거버넌스’로 발전해야 한다는 방향을 제시했다.

토스인사이트는 이번 보고서를 통해 한국 마이데이터 제도의 정책적 성과와 국제적 위치를 입체적으로 분석함으로써, 향후 데이터 경제 시대의 전략 수립에 기초 자료로 활용될 것으로 기대하고 있다.

토스인사이트 홍기훈 연구소장은 “마이데이터는 단순한 데이터 이동 제도를 넘어 정보주체의 권리를 강화하고 산업의 혁신을 촉진하는 새로운 패러다임”이라며 “이번 보고서가 한국형 마이데이터 제도의 지속가능한 발전과 글로벌 표준 논의에 기여하길 바란다”라고 말했다.
dl-ciokorea@foundryco.com