Governing AI-Assisted Security Operations: A Design Science Framework for Operational Decision Support

Large language models are increasingly being used to support network operations (NetOps) and artificial intelligence for IT operations (AIOps), including incident investigation, root-cause analysis, configuration synthesis, and limited self-healing. In both NetOps and AIOps, this shift is changing how tasks are managed. Agent-based operations work as workflows, from gathering evidence to taking action, following permissions, policies, and checks, and providing rollback options when necessary. This is crucial because operational decisions can have instant impacts. To make the argument concrete, we organise the relevant literature around the hierarchy of autonomy, tool scope, evidence traces, and assurance contracts. These contracts define what an agent may observe, propose, and execute. They also define the checks that must pass before any action is allowed. A consistent pattern appears across work on telemetry query recommendation, diagnosis, root-cause analysis, configuration synthesis, change planning, and limited self-healing. Operational reliability does not come chiefly from the model itself. It depends on the machinery around the model. We also argue that evaluation should go beyond static question answering. Agentic NetOps and AIOps systems require workflow-centred evaluation, including trace quality, bounded tool use, safe proposal generation, replay in sandboxed environments, and canary trials with rollback-aware scoring. Without these measures, a system may appear robust yet remain too fragile. Finally, we examine security, privacy, and governance risks that become acute when agents sit close to operational control surfaces. Taken together, the survey concludes that progress in intelligent NetOps and AIOps will depend on treating autonomy as a constrained operational control problem, whose outputs must be reliable, auditable, and securely deployable.

Security Operations Centers (SOCs) face mounting operational challenges. These challenges come from increasing threat volumes, heterogeneous SIEM platforms, and time-consuming manual triage workflows. We present an end-to-end threat management framework that integrates ensemble-based detection, syntax-constrained query generation, and retrieval-augmented resolution support to automate critical security workflows. Our detection module evaluates both traditional machine learning classifiers and large language models (LLMs), then combines the three best-performing LLMs to create an ensemble model, achieving 82.8% accuracy while maintaining 0.120 false positive rate on SIEM logs. We introduce the SQM (Syntax Query Metadata) architecture for automated evidence collection. It uses platform-specific syntax constraints, metadata-based retrieval, and documentation-grounded prompting to generate executable queries for IBM QRadar and Google SecOps. SQM achieves a BLEU score of 0.384 and a ROUGE-L score of 0.731. These results are more than twice as good as the baseline LLM performance. For incident resolution and recommendation generation, we demonstrate that integrating SQM-derived evidence improves resolution code prediction accuracy from 78.3% to 90.0%, with an overall recommendation quality score of 8.70. In production SOC environments, our framework reduces average incident triage time from hours to under 10 minutes. This work demonstrates that domain-constrained LLM architectures with retrieval augmentation can meet the strict reliability and efficiency requirements of operational security environments at scale.

Engineering management research has produced mature frameworks for software risk: ownership by feature, escalation by severity, and assurance by test coverage. These frameworks implicitly assume deterministic behavior, discrete and auditable change events, and clear component-to-owner mappings. Teams that build and operate agentic AI systems violate all three assumptions at once: outputs are probabilistic, systems take autonomous multi-step actions, and the risk surface mutates silently between deployments. Existing AI risk literature addresses this from above (policy frameworks such as the NIST AI RMF and ISO/IEC 42001) or below (threat taxonomies such as OWASP's agentic AI guidance), but not at the layer where an engineering manager (EM) operates: roles, decision rights, and escalation structures. This paper contributes (i) a seven-dimension profile distinguishing pure software-engineering, hybrid, and AI-native teams; (ii) a six-cluster failure-mode taxonomy including a previously unarticulated cluster, dependency-boundary determinism mismatch; and (iii) a synthetic framework-adequacy methodology scoring how well each profile's risk architecture detects, contains, and escalates a defined scenario set. Because the object of study is framework adequacy rather than human behavior, the evaluation yields derived rather than observed coverage claims. Coverage degrades as teams move from pure software engineering to AI-native operation, monotonically in the median and abruptly in the count of uncovered, high-consequence failures appearing only at the AI-native step. The degradation concentrates in specific failure-mode categories, and the most severe, least-covered failures arise not inside AI-native teams but at the organizational boundary where their probabilistic outputs are consumed by determinism-assuming dependencies.