Softlander Book a call
Agent sandbox assurance

Code-execution sandbox certification readiness

Prepare evidence for a separately defined sandbox certification assessment

A customer asks for certification evidence without naming the scheme or assessor. The decision is how to prepare evidence for a separately defined sandbox certification assessment. The work begins with your actual workflow and looks for the evidence that separates intended behaviour from a consequential exception. It is particularly relevant to platform sponsors and qualified certification advisers. A useful outcome is an explicit account of what was examined, what remains uncertain, and which decision the evidence can support.

Book a 30 minute readiness callBrowse this capability group

The runtime isolation relationship

  1. Starting evidenceTarget scheme requirements

    Establish the basis for target scheme.

  2. Decision boundaryEvidence mapping

    Link existing controls to required observations.

  3. Decision artefactCertification-readiness gap map

    Retain the scoped finding and its unresolved dependencies.

Proposed working model. Untested surfaces remain outside the conclusion.

Decision

Frame the decision around target scheme

Questions and the evidence they need

Criterion / evidenceTarget scheme
Inspect target scheme requirements for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceEvidence mapping
Inspect scope statements for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceReviewer dependency
Inspect architecture evidence for the relevant constraint or observation.
Read each criterion against the available evidence before deciding that additional work is needed.

The decision is how to prepare evidence for a separately defined sandbox certification assessment. This is relevant to platform sponsors and qualified certification advisers when a customer asks for certification evidence without naming the scheme or assessor. Name the affected workflow, the consequence of a wrong decision, and the owner who can act on the result. The initial discussion should establish which evidence is already available and which uncertainty is material enough to investigate.

The specific failure hypothesis is that readiness work is mistaken for certification or for an assessor’s acceptance decision. It remains a hypothesis until examined in the deployment. Existing internal tests or operating records may already resolve it; identify the uncovered question before commissioning additional work.

Mechanism

Readiness work begins with named assessment criteria

Relationships within runtime isolation

Source or conditionTarget scheme
Confirm the applicable criteria and scope.
Crossing or choiceEvidence mapping
Link existing controls to required observations.
Consequence or decisionReviewer dependency
Identify missing evidence and eligible review roles.
Compare effective controls with harmless test observations. Each relationship needs evidence in the actual scope.

What this specialty examines

Certification readiness starts with the exact scheme, scope and assessor requirements. Without those, evidence preparation lacks an acceptance target. Distinguish technical control gaps from missing documentation and from requirements that need a qualified external opinion.

The review should confirm the target criteria and map existing evidence, missing controls and reviewer dependencies. Identify the normal route, relevant exceptions and the authoritative record of the outcome. Inspect the relevant business-system record, enforcement event or process evidence alongside any reported status. Keep incomplete cases visible, with an explanation of what their absence prevents the owner from concluding.

The tradeoff to make explicit

For this decision, preparation can organize evidence while formal assessment depends on the selected scheme and qualified assessor. Compare the available design or operating choices against the same intended outcome. If one option removes a required control or changes the task boundary, describe that difference before treating its apparent simplicity, speed or lower effort as an improvement. The decision should expose the tradeoff instead of burying it in an aggregate score.

Preparation

Connect the working inputs to the boundary being examined

Evidence packet for target scheme

Illustrative working format

BasisTarget scheme requirements
Confirm the applicable revision and who resolves disputed interpretation.
ContextScope statements
Check its relationship to the relevant workflow and expose missing context.
ObservationArchitecture evidence
Name the custodian and the conditions requiring a refreshed version.
DependencyControl-test records
Establish permitted access, provenance, and which task conditions it represents.
Illustrative preparation record. Availability, revision, and handling need confirmation.

Start with target scheme requirements, scope statements, architecture evidence and control-test records. Identify the owner, revision and operating context of each source. Sanitised examples may support initial design, but differences from actual conditions should remain explicit. Where direct access is unsuitable, a customer-controlled evidence or execution route may be considered, with agreed handling and retention.

The scope also needs the runtime owner, agreed expectations for a representative boundary test, and the authority to inspect the relevant boundary. Specify what evidence would distinguish the failure in which readiness work is mistaken for certification or for an assessor’s acceptance decision from acceptable behaviour. If stakeholders disagree about intended behaviour, resolve the interpretation before classifying the observed difference as a defect.

How the work proceeds

Carry target scheme through to an accountable finding

From the scoped material to a decision record

  1. Establish conditionsTarget scheme requirements

    Declare the permitted environment and resources.

  2. Examine the relationshipEvidence mapping

    Apply the scoped check to reviewer dependency.

  3. Retain the findingCertification-readiness gap map

    Record the evidence, open dependencies, and the owner’s next decision.

Proposed sequence; resolve interpretation or access gaps before relying on the next step.

Prepare the runtime boundary and fixtures

Use target scheme requirements, scope statements, architecture evidence and control-test records to identify the exact runtime and boundary claimed by platform sponsors and qualified certification advisers. Mark permitted resources and protected resources in a controlled fixture, including shared services where they are relevant. Define observable success, denial and incomplete setup before execution. The preparation output is a boundary map and fixture manifest that lets reviewers distinguish effective isolation from a test that never reached its target.

Exercise and inspect the boundary

Map each selected requirement to existing evidence and identify what would be needed to address gaps. Preserve the assessor’s authority over formal acceptance. Preparation can organize work and reduce ambiguity, but cannot promise a certification result.

Choose containment or configuration changes

Translate the observations into a certification-readiness gap map and proposed evidence preparation plan. Locate each issue in the worker, shared service, policy rollout or cleanup path rather than attributing every symptom to the sandbox as a whole. Decide which configuration change, narrower resource exposure or specialist investigation is warranted. Retest the affected boundary and inspect residual state before treating the changed environment as equivalent to the intended design.

Indicative artefact

Make the certification-readiness gap map usable by its owner

Certification-readiness gap map

Illustrative working format

Annotated fieldCertification-readiness gap map
Separate demonstrated practice from claims requiring a verified credential authority.
Annotated fieldEvidence preparation plan
Link observations and counterevidence to the case, configuration, and conclusion limit.
Annotated fieldEvidence mapping evidence
Link observations and counterevidence to the case, configuration, and conclusion limit.
Illustrative artefact structure, not a completed engagement or an observed result.

A useful decision artefact is a certification-readiness gap map and proposed evidence preparation plan. Supporting material may include selected cases, configuration or process records, evidence references, a disagreement log and prioritised actions. Retain the case selection rationale and material disagreements alongside the result; otherwise the result may be mistaken for complete coverage.

Illustrative scenario

Examine reviewer dependency through a constructed exception

A constructed case and its decision paths

Illustrative scenario

  1. SituationTarget scheme

    A team requests certification without first choosing a specific scheme.

  2. Question to examineEvidence mapping

    Identify the target scheme and map its specific evidence requirements.

  3. Conditional next actionReviewer dependency

    Prepare gaps for eligible review without claiming certification.

Fictional example. No executed test, customer engagement, or measured outcome is implied.

Consider a fictional situation: a platform team receives a procurement questionnaire requesting certified code isolation but the requested scheme is unspecified. The scenario is illustrative, with no client engagement, executed test or measured improvement implied.

For the unspecified procurement request, the first action is to clarify the requested scheme and assessed boundary. Only then can the team identify relevant artefacts and specialists. A generic sandbox report should not be relabeled as a certificate.

Scope and next action

Keep the conclusion within the authorised runtime boundary

Confirm fit before the next commitment

Included boundaryTarget scheme
This review is limited to the authorised runtime boundary.
PrerequisiteTarget scheme requirements
The relevant owner must confirm access and the intended operating conditions.
Claim limitCertification-readiness gap map
Untested surfaces remain outside the conclusion.
Bring the triggering change and existing evidence; resolve the dependency that could alter the decision.

Testing is confined to explicitly authorised environments and non-destructive cases. A bounded assessment cannot establish that escape or cross-boundary access is impossible. Any engagement depends on an agreed scope, qualified team, authorised access and confirmed availability. Bring the affected workflow, its current configuration or process, the triggering change and the evidence already available. The immediate scope question is prompted by the situation in which a customer asks for certification evidence without naming the scheme or assessor; confirm which missing observation would change the owner’s next action.

Ways to engage

Related engagement scopes

AI Agent Runtime Security Review

Make every delegation explicit. Examine who the agent acts for, where it can execute and which tools it can reach when instructions alone are not enough.

Read about this offer

AI Agent Red Team

Challenge the boundaries that matter to your workflow. Test agreed attack scenarios against agent instructions, tools and data access.

Read about this offer

AI Agent Sandbox Assurance

Examine the boundary between agent execution and the systems around it, including files, networks, secrets and cleanup.

Read about this offer

Continue exploring

Related insights and resources

Agent security6 MIN READ

The permission boundary behind every agent action

An agent can only be evaluated in the context of what its tools allow. Examine identity, delegated authority and action boundaries before you put a workflow in motion.

Whitepaper5 MIN READ

Before your agent can act, define its authority

A working paper for the moment an AI system moves from advice to action. Map identity, permissions, approvals and recovery into an authority model your team can review and test.

A little more clarity

Questions to consider.

Start with the questions that shape a better decision.

Does this work issue or guarantee a certification?

No. Readiness work organizes evidence and identifies gaps against a specified scheme. Certification decisions belong to the appropriate qualified assessor and process; no award or acceptance is guaranteed.

Which scheme requirements define certification readiness?

Start with target scheme requirements, scope statements, architecture evidence and control-test records. Record their revision, owner and relationship to the intended workflow. Missing context should be identified before interpreting outcomes; a sanitised fixture is useful only when its relevant differences from the operating case are understood.

How should evidence gaps be mapped to assessor criteria?

Confirm the target criteria and map existing evidence, missing controls and reviewer dependencies. Retain effective runtime configuration and observations from the relevant boundary. Distinguish an enforced denial from failed setup or an operation that never reached the resource. Use controlled markers and preserve residual-state evidence.

What belongs in a certification-readiness plan?

The proposed output is a certification-readiness gap map and proposed evidence preparation plan. Include the selected conditions, supporting observations, unresolved differences and next decision. A reviewer should be able to follow each important conclusion back to its evidence and understand the limits without depending on an undocumented explanation from the author.

When should preparation wait for scope clarification?

Wait when the requested scheme, assessor, scope or criteria are unknown. Clarify those prerequisites before producing an evidence plan; generic technical findings should not be represented as certification readiness for an unspecified target.

What if existing evidence already answers the question?

Review its scope, provenance and configuration before proposing new work. Existing work from platform sponsors and qualified certification advisers may already be sufficient. In that case, capture the decision, unresolved limitations and the change that would require another review. Additional assessment should address a real gap.

What would make the findings inconclusive?

Missing target scheme requirements, scope statements, architecture evidence and control-test records can prevent a reliable interpretation, depending on the case. Record the specific missing observation and its implication. The owner can supply evidence, narrow the claim or defer the dependent decision; an incomplete case should not silently be counted as a pass.

Start with the decision you need to make.

Tell us about the agent workflow you want reviewed, and where you need greater clarity. Scope and availability are confirmed together.

Book a 30 minute readiness call Get the agent release checklist

Connected disciplines

Sandbox architecture review

Decide whether the proposed execution boundary matches the agent's privileges. The review connects deployment diagrams, mount configuration, network routes and privilege settings to a bounded review of execution boundaries, giving the runtime owner a clearer basis for the next action.

Isolation-boundary testing

Verify the resource boundaries an execution environment is meant to enforce. The review connects approved boundary claims, synthetic fixtures, runtime policies and host observations to a bounded review of execution boundaries, giving the runtime owner a clearer basis for the next action.

Escape-resistance assessment

Assess evidence for resisting escape from a defined execution environment. The review connects runtime versions, privilege configuration, host interfaces and an authorised threat model to a bounded review of execution boundaries, giving the runtime owner a clearer basis for the next action.