The proposal clock starts before the evidence from discovery has a usable shape.
Sellers need fast follow-up after discovery, while security claims must remain grounded in what the buyer actually shared.
Who you’d be doing this for
“My CISO asked what we’d catch that our gateway misses, and I’m still pulling examples together.”
Tala Erdogan · Security Operations Manager
Owns the analyst workflow at a Microsoft 365 enterprise evaluating whether an additional email-security platform can prove a meaningful detection gap.
What is at stake
Pilot opportunities are slipping after discovery because account evidence and buyer commitments sit across three systems. You must decide what AI prepares, what sellers verify, and how the team measures a usable next step.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- follow-up speed vs. claim accuracy
- seller autonomy vs. review consistency
- discovery context vs. structured records
- proposal momentum vs. durable customer expectations
Why Abnormal AI
Inbound Email Security evaluations depend on translating Microsoft 365 security concerns into a credible case for detecting business email compromise and phishing.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 17 more at Abnormal AI, or browse every organization.
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.