Here in this high-tech era of 2026, keeping important info backed up and synced should be effortless and something that just happens on its own, automatically, without any actual thought or ongoing human effort.

In many areas of our digital life, that mercifully does Just Work™ in exactly that way. Fire up an email in most modern mail services, and you can stop at any point and find your in-progress draft in that same app on any other device. The same applies to any file you’re finessing within Google Drive or other cloud storage services or document you’re dawdling over in Docs.

One area where seamless syncing somehow still doesn’t occur, though, is in the domain of downloaded documents on Android. If someone sends you a PDF or a Word file and you save it to your phone, that file exists in an archaic-seeming silo — only locally, on that one gadget. And that, of course, means (a) you can’t access it from any other device, and (b) if you misplace your phone or move into a new one at some point along the way, the file will be left behind in time and entirely unavailable.

Well, take a moment to join me in celebration: Amidst all the Gemini gobbledegook that no one asked for (and that often falls somewhere between “pointless” and “actively counterproductive”), Google’s giving us a major upgrade to Android’s backup capabilities right now. It’s a simple-seeming switch buried in your system settings, and it’s up to you to find and activate it.

Once you do, though, those once-orphaned documents on your Android device’s local storage will be perpetually synced and protected, automatically, without any ongoing thought or effort.

All you’ve gotta do is find and flip that one new switch.

[Don’t let yourself miss an ounce of Android Intelligence. Join my free weekly Android Intelligence newsletter and get one new thing to try in your inbox every Friday!]

The Android backup lowdown

So, for a quick bit of pertinent context on this: Android’s backup systems have actually come a really long way over the years.

‘Twas a time, y’see, when little to nothing about you would sync and carry over automatically from one Android device to another. Years ago — back in the ancient-seeming prehistoric era of the early 2010s — Android enthusiasts in the know would rely on community-created third-party apps for everything from remembering and resyncing downloaded apps to restoring data from within those apps and onward. And reconfiguring your system preferences would be a whole time-consuming song and dance every single time you reset a device or moved into a new one, as little to nothing would automatically carry over.

Most of that stuff is now effortless and automatic. And, thanks to apps like Google Messages, Calendar, Drive, and Docs, many other areas of important data are also synced on their own at the app level — outside of any system mechanisms.

Locally stored files, however, have remained an awkward omission. To this day, anything you download on any Android device exists only on that one device and isn’t synced or backed up anywhere. The only way that happens is — in a blast-from-the-past twist — if you go out of your way to find and set up a third-party app to handle the heavy lifting.

That brings us to today. Right now, as we speak, Google’s in the midst of sending out a quiet under-the-hood update that (brace yourself…) adds in the option to automatically sync and back up any documents on your device as a native part of Android’s backup setup.

See?

JR Raphael, Foundry

The option is on its way to all devices running 2018’s Android 9 release and higher. (If you’re still using a phone with an Android version older than that, you’re now a whopping eight years out of date, and you have much bigger problems.)

Once the added option is present and available for you, you’re literally lookin’ at 10 seconds to find and activate it.

Lemme show ya how.

Android’s document backup addition

I promise: This couldn’t be much simpler.

No matter what kind of Android device is in front of you, just head into your system settings and open the section called “Accounts and backup,” “Back up or copy data,” or something along those same lines. (The exact wording can vary based on who made your device and when it was released or last updated.)

Either tap the line labeled “Google Backup” or look for an option to “Back up data” via Google Drive. You should then either see a series of options for different areas of available backup right then and there — or, depending on your device, you might have to tap a line labeled “Other device data” (or something similar) to find the full list of possibilities.

However you get there, once you’re lookin’ at that list, you’ll see a newly added line for “Documents” if this latest under-the-hood update has reached you.

JR Raphael, Foundry

And from there, all that’s left is to tap it and enable the switch to include that in your automated backups from that moment forward.

If you aren’t seeing the option yet, don’t panic. Google always sends these under-the-hood updates out bit by bit over time, so the change probably just hasn’t reached your device quite yet. As long as you’re running Android 9 or higher, it’ll get there. Set yourself a reminder to check back once a week or so. Odds are, you’ll see it pretty soon.

Notably, all documents synced in this way are always encrypted for security, and they’re kept in your personal (or, depending on the nature of your account, perhaps company-connected) Google Drive storage. That does mean they’ll count against your overall Google storage total, so keep an eye on your Drive storage total to make sure you’re in solid shape and look to the Google One storage hub if you ever want some simple suggestions for freeing up space.

Speaking of other Google services: If you ever want to keep other types of locally stored non-document files from an Android device synced and available elsewhere, you can easily rely on Google Photos for syncing screenshots and other images — after enabling sync in general, be sure to look in the app’s “Collections” areas to find the “On this device” folder and then flip the toggle to “Backup all device folders” (or get more nuanced and open specific individual on-device folders if you want to sync some but not all of those areas) — and you can still turn to those aforementioned third-party apps for broader syncing of anything else imaginable.

But with documents now being handled automatically and natively, that’s one big worry now out of your hair. Just note that the onus will fall on you to find and flip the switch and actively opt in to the feature on each and every Android device you’re using.

Take 10 seconds to do that, though, and you’ll have one less void in your Android data arena. And you don’t need Gemini to tell you that that can only be a good thing.

Get practical Android knowledge in your inbox every Friday with my free Android Intelligence newsletter — one new thing to try each week, straight from me to you.

Traditional phishing techniques are in decline as a result of the disruption of the Tycoon2FA phishing-as-a-service (PHaaS) platform, Microsoft said in a new report, “Email threat landscape: Q2 2026 trends and insights”.

“Phishing volume linked to the platform fell 92% from pre-disruption averages, including QR code phishing and CAPTCHA-gated phishing both declining from their March highs,” the company wrote in the report.

The takedown reduced activity across multiple phishing categories, forcing attackers to shift to newer delivery methods.

Riding this shift in were a few notable phishing campaigns, including an automated business email compromise (BEC) campaign that reached 42,000 organizations in under three hours, and a multi-stage phishing campaign that used nested email (EML) files, calendar invitations, and a Microsoft authentication redirect to deliver malware.

To counter phishing attacks, Microsoft recommends blocking emails containing known bad URLs/ subject fields, enabling password-less authentication methods, or moving to MFA for accounts that still require passwords.

Tycoon2FA disruption sent attackers exploring

The take-down of Tycoon2FA forced its operators to abandon portions of their infrastructure and rework hosting, domain registrations, and delivery mechanisms.

“After falling 15% in March and another 22% in April, Tycoon2FA-linked phishing volume dropped 74% in May to just 1.5 million messages, then fell another 20% in June to 1.2 million, by far the lowest monthly volumes observed in at least a year,” Microsoft said.

The decline extended to QR Code lures and fake CAPTCHA pages, two phishing techniques in which Tycoon2FA accounted for 12% and 14% of industry activity in June, respectively. This indicated that the platform’s customer base had not been able to migrate to a replacement infrastructure.

But cutting off one head of the hacker hydra only gave rise to new tactics elsewhere.

The adaptation came in the form of using Microsoft Teams as a social engineering channel. Attackers established conversations to build trust before attempting credential theft or delivering malicious payloads. “Teams-based phishing volume climbed steadily throughout Q2, with the average number of detected attacks rising 19% from March to April, holding roughly flat into May (+1%), then increasing another 10% into June,” Microsoft said.

Microsoft also observed a highly automated BEC campaign that reached over 67,000 users using scripted emails, Amazon Simple Email Service (SES), and engagement tracking, alongside a separate phishing campaign targeting 107,000 users that abused Microsoft’s authentication flow and trusted cloud services, including Teams archive recording and ICS calendar invite, to disguise malware delivery behind legitimate infrastructure.

Phishing changes but the defense doesn’t

While QR Code and Captcha-based phishing attacks dropped significantly in the second quarter, business email compromise (BEC) charted jumped 121% between March and April, before dropping down again in May.

QR Code phishing represented 8.3 million attacks in June 2026, down from a peak of 18.7 million in March. Similarly, Captcha-gated phishing fell from 12 million attacks in March to 2.2 million in June.

BEC attacks hit 9 million in March, falling to 3.9 million in June.

But even as these phishing classics lost momentum and newer techniques emerged, Microsoft’s defensive advice remained rooted in the basics. It noted organizations should complement email filtering with phishing-resistant authentication such as passkeys and phishing-resistant MFA to reduce the effectiveness of credential theft campaigns.

The company also recommended strengthening Exchange Online Protection and Microsoft Defender for Office 365 with capabilities such as Safe links and Zero-hour Auto Purge (ZAP), in which malicious emails already delivered to mailboxes are removed before they are read, alongside enforcing password-less authentication methods like Windows Hello, FIDO keys, and Microsoft Authenticator.

Microsoft concluded its report with a list of indicators of compromise (IoCs) from the threats observed in the quarter to support detection efforts.

This article first appeared on CSO.

Every CIO I speak with today is wrestling with some version of the same question: How do we move faster with AI and deliver on our commitments?

It’s an understandable concern. Boards and CEOs are asking about AI. Business leaders are experimenting with use cases. Employees are discovering tools daily, while technology vendors promise unprecedented gains in productivity, innovation, and competitive advantage.

After hundreds of conversations with technology executives over the past year, I’ve become convinced that speed isn’t the real issue. The organizations pulling away from the pack aren’t necessarily adopting AI faster than everyone else. They’re executing more effectively — a subtle distinction that represents one of the defining leadership challenges of the AI era.

Technology has never been the hardest part of transformation. People, priorities, culture, and operating models are the biggest challenges. The ability to translate bold boardroom aspirations into thousands of thoughtful decisions made every day by architects, engineers, product managers, analysts, and business leaders is where competitive advantage is created. AI may be accelerating the pace of change, but it hasn’t changed that fundamental truth.

I’ve met plenty of executives who are exceptional in the boardroom. They know how to frame a vision, influence a board, and build confidence among investors and business leaders. I’ve also met remarkable technologists who instinctively understand the architectural decisions, engineering tradeoffs, and implementation details that determine how great ideas become reality. Modern CIOs, however, must move comfortably between both worlds. Afshean Talasaz is one who stands out among this rare breed.

Long before becoming CIO of Colonial Pipeline, Talasaz built his career from the ground up as a business professional, data scientist, and technologist. He has designed enterprise platforms, built AI capabilities, led technology organizations, and partnered closely with executive leadership teams on business transformation. Today, as an executive in residence with our Practitioners for Practitioners (P4P) community, he helps CIOs and business leaders navigate one of the most significant technology shifts of our generation.

While Talasaz brings deep knowledge of data and AI to the table, his greatest strength is his ability to create strategy and connect it with execution. He can spend the morning discussing enterprise reinvention with the board and the afternoon debating architectural principles with the teams responsible for bringing that vision to life.

That versatility gives Talasaz a unique lens on how CIOs can deliver value with AI.

Software companies have a term for engineers who understand every layer of the technology stack: full-stack developers. Listen to Talasaz and it becomes evident that the AI era requires something similar from technology leaders: a full-stack CIO.

The full-stack CIO: Leading with clarity

A full-stack CIO understands how every layer of the enterprise influences the next. They recognize that every strategic priority becomes a portfolio investment, every investment shapes an operating model, every operating model influences architecture, every architecture choice informs product decisions, every product decision shapes engineering priorities.

The best CIOs understand both ends of that journey. The extraordinary ones understand everything in between.

And those who execute best lead with clarity, Talasaz says.

“Everyone, from executives to middle managers to the people writing code, should be able to explain what we’re trying to achieve,” he emphasizes. “Clarity isn’t that we’ve handed out the PowerPoint. It’s that people genuinely understand where we’re going and can articulate it in their own language.”

One of the unintended consequences of the AI boom is that organizations are beginning to confuse activity with alignment. They have AI councils, AI governance committees, AI innovation labs, AI centers of excellence, AI pilots, and AI roadmaps. Yet if you stop ten people in the hallway and ask a deceptively simple question, What business problem are we actually trying to solve? you’ll often hear ten different answers.

As a result, architects optimize for one objective while product teams optimize for another. Business units pursue opportunities that seem perfectly reasonable from their perspective. Engineers make thoughtful technical decisions based on the information available to them. Individually, none of those decisions are necessarily wrong. Collectively, however, they create organizational drift. AI doesn’t create that problem. It simply accelerates the consequences.

And while AI can be a force multiplier for the positive when every decision is guided by a shared understanding of where the organization is headed, it can also be a force multiplier for the negative, resulting in an organization simply moving faster in different directions.

“When we have the fundamentals right, the tech infrastructure, the operating models, the nuances of how our business actually runs, we get the impacts of AI in a positive way,” Talasaz says. “When we don’t have those in place, AI can amplify the gaps or mute the benefits.”

At a time when so much of the conversation surrounding AI is focused on algorithms, agents, and automation, it’s an important reminder that organizations don’t execute strategy; people do.

Reducing organizational friction

Most executives are familiar with the concept of VUCA that characterizes today’s business environment. But Talasaz stresses the importance of turning this concern inward: “If the world outside our organizations is becoming more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, what are we, as leaders, doing to the inside of our organizations?”

Leaders spend enormous amounts of time helping their organizations respond to external disruption but comparatively little time asking whether they are inadvertently re-creating those same conditions internally in response to those external needs. Are we reducing uncertainty or introducing more of it? Are we simplifying work or adding unnecessary complexity? Are we helping people focus on what matters most, or asking them to navigate competing priorities and shifting expectations?

Talasaz refers to this phenomenon as double VUCA — something I’ve witnessed repeatedly while working with CIOs over the past decade. Organizations often assume they’re struggling because of technology limitations when the real constraint is organizational friction. Teams wait for decisions. Priorities shift faster than roadmaps. Governance grows heavier. New committees are formed to solve problems created by existing committees. Everyone is working harder, yet the organization somehow feels slower.

AI amplifies both outcomes. Organizations with clarity become dramatically more effective because AI accelerates good decisions. Organizations without clarity simply accelerate confusion.

Operating model as strategy enabler

AI governance is one way to achieve greater clarity, but as Talasaz says, governance shouldn’t primarily exist inside policy manuals that few people read.

Instead, AI governance should be embedded in the daily rhythms of the organization, shaping how teams collaborate, how decisions are made, how products move from ideas into production, and how innovation happens safely without requiring constant escalation. In other words, it’s all about your operating model.

“If you had to pick one thing that isn’t technology, your operating model is the most important element for executing data and AI at scale,” he says.

The best operating models create enough clarity that capable people can make thousands of decisions independently and confidently, without having to wait for permission. By embedding good governance into the way it works, the organization becomes faster.

This advice echoes something I’ve heard repeatedly from some of the world’s most respected CIOs: High-performing organizations aren’t built on tighter control; they’re built on greater trust, supported by clear principles, shared expectations, and operating models that enable responsible decision-making at every level of the enterprise.

Talasaz points out that technology leaders tend to speak in terms of transformation. He suggests CIOs consider a different word: reinvention.

As he explains, transformation implies replacing what exists today with something new. Reinvention starts with a more clear-eyed and practical premise: Some things absolutely must change; others represent years, sometimes decades, of accumulated expertise, customer trust, operational discipline, and competitive advantage.

Reinvention is about building on those strengths while also creating new ways to deliver value. The leaders making the greatest progress in their AI journeys seem to recognize that it’s less about abandoning the past than thoughtfully preparing the organization for the future.

Closing the gap between strategy and execution

Full-stack CIOs must be able to map out the various layers of execution and planning that need to be done at every level of the organization to be successful. To help with this, Talasaz has developed a data and AI framework that draws on his own experiences “from the keyboard to the boardroom.”

As Talasaz sees it, too many organizations have been doing good work in isolation. “They’re doing a lot of the right things,” he says. “They’re just not connected.”

Boards may be discussing growth while business leaders redesign customer experiences. Product teams may be prioritizing new capabilities while architects modernize platforms. Data teams may be improving quality while engineers focus on delivery. Every group makes meaningful progress within its own domain, yet somewhere between strategy and execution, the connective tissue begins to disappear. Talasaz’s framework brings those connecting points to the forefront.

Crucially, the framework doesn’t begin with technology or AI or even with data. It begins with the experiences the organization hopes to create for its customers, employees, or partners. Many AI initiatives start with the question, “What can this technology do?” And indeed, we need to be inspired by the possibilities and challenged to think differently by what the technology can do. But, Talasaz emphasizes, we also need to ask what experiences we need to deliver for our business and how the technology can make that a reality.

The framework challenges CIOs to answer that question first. Only after the experiences are clearly defined does the conversation move to the capabilities required to deliver it, the business activities that support those capabilities, the AI and data products that enable them, and finally the data foundation that makes everything possible.

This shift in perspective ensures that, rather than allowing technology investments to search for business value, the business experience defines the technology required to deliver it. For CIOs, that’s more than a planning exercise. It’s a fundamentally different way of leading.

Over the coming months, the P4P community will be convening a series of small CxO roundtables to explore these issues and work more deeply with Afshean Talasaz’s 6×6 Data and AI Framework. CIOs and other enterprise leaders interested in participating are welcome to reach out to me directly.

When it comes to building an effective AI stack, context is king and power isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be.

“Smaller, smarter, safer — this is a bet our company has taken in how we deploy AI internally,” said Ricky Thakrar, head of sales and account management at Zoho, provider of a suite of popular cloud-based software solutions for sales, marketing, and finance.

“I’m on the business side, and so decisions made by our CIO and IT folks affect me directly, and my teams’ workflows and processes,” he added.

Speaking to a room of tech leaders at the CIO 100 Leadership Live New York event last week, Thakrar explained that every company wants the speed of AI-generated work wedded to the quality of human work, even though these two are diametrically opposed. No amount of model upgrades or spend will close that gap, so the only way forward is to architect your way out. Thakrar encapsulated this idea in a simple formula:

• Smaller: Stop deploying maximum firepower on every task. Many tasks don’t need it.
• Smarter: The system around the model decides more than the model does.
• Safer: Verify at the point a mistake gets locked in, not just downstream of it.

He noted that organizations that win with AI won’t be those deploying the biggest, most powerful models or the most sophisticated architecture, but the ones that figure out that the model is the easy part and the right architecture is harder. That means understanding the hardest element, and the biggest differentiator, is building a human system that learns and compounds alongside agentic systems.

To get it right, organizations need to prioritize the context layer. The size of frontier models like the GPT series, Claude, and Gemini mostly exist to compensate for missing context, Thakrar explained. Without enough context, models need to be able to reason harder and infer more about what a user actually means because it doesn’t know the user’s account, process, or history. A rich context layer makes it possible for enterprises to run workloads on much smaller, lower-power models.

“The intelligence moves from the model into the architecture around it,” he said.

A steep learning curve

One of Zoho’s earliest AI agents was a churn management agent to help the account management team detect churn in customer subscriptions. So when a subscription became inactive, the agent would collect context from notes, meeting recordings, and Zoho’s data enrichment tool, then create a summary of reasons the account might have churned, and schedule a call.

“What happened was I got this churn agent a couple months later, already embedded in our CRM, and within a week my team no longer trusted that agent,” Thakrar said. “The reason is we forgot to collect one very key point.”

In Zoho’s CRM, when a customer buys a bundle of products, that bundle is represented as a single line item. That means the status of any products the customer may have previously purchased individually changes to inactive as they’re moved to the bundle. That’s not churn, but it was interpreted it that way. Zoho fixed it in the second version of the agent.

Then a new problem arose. Many potential customers first purchase Zoho products as pilots or sandboxes. As those customers move from pilot to live instance, they close down the pilot versions. And again, the CRM would record that as subscriptions going inactive.

“The trust deteriorates again because everyone got excited for version 2,” Thakrar said.

Sometimes, a certain product might not be the best fit for a customer and Thakrar’s team will suggest the customer move to another product. That’s deliberate churn, not a churn risk.

“You may have a similar story like this where the agent sounds so good, it’s going to do something quick and add value, but it’s missing context from the account managers, and there are so many more pieces we’re still building out,” Thakrar said. “It’s been almost a year and the problem I have is my team still doesn’t trust it. They’ll see [a message from the agent] and go out and do all the research anyway to make sure it gave the correct answer.”

The team is more on top of potential churn, though, but the promised productivity gains have yet to materialize because the agent has to earn back lost trust due to a lack of context.

“My goal for this year is having an AI-assisted customer journey from sales to account management where the handoff is clean, the context flows, and every piece of information we gather about a customer is weighed, identified, and coached so the sales team can close more deals,” he said.

Zoho’s early experience with agents has led to the idea that constrained, context-rich, deterministic architectures consistently outperform expensive models bolted onto fragmented systems. It all comes down to three pillars: routing, harness, and specialization.

Routing

Routing is about sending workloads to the proper model for the job, which entails providing enough context to a given task that a small, cheap model can handle it without the need for spare reasoning capacity to fill gaps.

Frontier models are expensive and companies can burn through a year’s budget worth of tokens in months. But most tasks can be handled by much smaller, more constrained models at a fraction of the cost.

“You don’t always have to pay the frontier guys for every task,” he said. “We’ve observed with some clients that we could save them 95% with a 3 billion parameter model.”

Harness

An AI agent harness is the software infrastructure scaffolding around an LLM that differentiates an agent from a chatbot. It’s what enables an agent to act on tasks rather than simply respond to prompts. A model reasons through a problem and decides what to do about it. The harness connects the model to the tools, systems, memory, guardrails, and execution environments required to perform the actions determined by the model. The term is frequently used more or less interchangeably with orchestration layer.

“It’s the process around the model, which matters way more than the model itself,” Thakrar said.

In benchmark tests, a superior harness on a less powerful model produces better results than an inferior harness on a much bigger model.

For the best results, Thakrar said, it’s essential to understand the deterministic and non-deterministic elements of a given workload, and build that into the architecture. Machines can read, organize, and validate, and they excel at deterministic tasks. Humans, on the other hand, are exceptional at non-deterministic tasks like judging, synthesizing, and deciding.

Those non-deterministic tasks in a process are the ideal point for AI agents to incorporate a human in the loop, what Thakrar calls human harness. He pointed to a stakeholder mapping agent Zoho built for sales as an example, which takes the context of an initial meeting and third-party enriched data like a LinkedIn profile, weighs probabilities, and makes an educated guess about the stakeholder map.

“The initial goal was just to eliminate that task completely from the human workflow,” he said. “The stakeholder map is done, it’s in the folder, and you can look at it.”

But the agent would struggle to capture nuance. The meanings of titles in organizations always vary, and the politics and dynamics of any given meeting can be difficult for an AI agent to discern. Rather than keep feeding the agent data to try to make it intelligent enough to make those determinations, it was simpler and more efficient for the agent to create a proposed stakeholder map and hand it over to a human who could make changes and explain why those changes were necessary.

Ultimately, Thakrar said the agent still saved human team members time because the stakeholder map was usually pretty close, and the corrections also helped the model grow smarter by adding richer context.

Specialization

Specialization is transitioning a process from testing on a frontier model to production on a much narrower, smaller model. Once you’ve proven that an agent can do a job well, you want to stop paying master-craftsman rates to keep doing that one job well.

Specialization is all about capturing your subject matter experts’ best judgement and pattern recognition to build an open-weight, open source, trained, and fine-tuned model that can be deployed in your own data center.

“The true enterprise bet is to keep that orchestration layer, which is your IP and knowledge, in house,” Thakrar said. “You don’t want to host that on someone else’s model. The goal of everyone in enterprise should be to run, train, and host their own models.”

Over the past few years, I have learned that basic prompts produce inconsistent, hallucination-prone results that no executive would trust in production. What turned the tide was my move to advanced prompting techniques. These weren’t theoretical experiments; they became a practical foundation for reliable, measurable outcomes. I want to share the techniques that consistently delivered the biggest gains in my projects, complete with real before-and-after examples, copy-paste templates, lessons from failures and guidance on when to evolve beyond prompting to agentic systems.

Why advanced prompting still matters in enterprise settings

Sophisticated prompting remains essential for control, reliability and compliance. If you “ask nicely” and hope for the best, you need deterministic behavior, auditable reasoning and minimal risk of hallucination. Here’s what worked for me.

1. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and its variants: Unlocking step-by-step reasoning

The problem: Models would jump to conclusions on complex analysis tasks, especially involving data interpretation or multi-step logic.

What I did: I started explicitly instructing the model to “think step by step” and show its reasoning.

Before (basic prompt): “Analyze last quarter’s sales data and recommend three actions.”

After (CoT prompt):

“You’re a senior business analyst. Analyze the following sales data step by step: [data]. First, identify the key trends. Second, calculate the rates and anomalies. Third, link findings to business context. Finally, recommend the three prioritized actions with expected impact. Explain your reasoning at each step.”  

Results: Accuracy and depth improved dramatically.

Variants that worked well: Self-consistency. I ran the same CoT prompt multiple times and took the majority consensus. This reduced variability significantly.

Template you can use:

You are [expert role]. Solve this problem by thinking step by step.

[Task or question]

For each step:

1. State your observation or calculation.

2. Explain the implication.

3. Proceed only when confident.

Final answer in this format: [structured output]

2. Tree-of-Thoughts (ToT): Exploring multiple reasoning paths

For truly complex decisions such as resource allocation or risk assessment, linear CoT isn’t enough. Tree-of-Thoughts lets the model generate and evaluate multiple branches.

Example: I was helping a client evaluate three potential vendor platforms for an AI deployment. A standard prompt gave a superficial comparison. With ToT

Prompt Snippet:

Explore three different reasoning paths for selecting the best vendor platform:

Path 1: Focus on cost and scalability.

Path 2: Focus on security, compliance and integration.

Path 3: Focus on innovation and long-term roadmap.

For each path, evaluate pros/cons against our requirements [list].

Then, compare the paths and recommend the strongest overall option with justification.

Outcome: The model surfaced nuanced trade-offs (e.g., one vendor had superior security, but higher integration cost).

When to use: Strategic planning, troubleshooting or scenarios with high uncertainty and multiple viable approaches.

3. ReAct (Reason+ Act) and prompt chaining: Moving toward agentic behavior

One of the biggest leaps I have noticed comes from combining reasoning with tool use and chaining prompts.

ReAct example: (used in data analytics workflow)

You are an AI analyst with access to tools. For the query below:

1. Reason about what information you need.

2. Choose the appropriate tool or action.

3. Observe the result.

4. Repeat until you can answer confidently.

Query: [user request]

In practice, I chained this with retrieval tools. One automated quarterly compliance reporting; the system reasoned about required data, pulled relevant records, validated them, and generated the reports.

4. Meta-prompting and self-reflection: Letting the model improve itself

Use the model to refine its own prompt. This is a huge time-saver.

You are an expert prompt engineer. Improve the following prompt for clarity, structure and effectiveness with [target model]. Make it more precise while preserving intent.

Original prompt: [paste]

Provide the improved version and explain your changes.

Self-reflection loops (asking the model to critique its own output and revise) are a game-changer for content generation and code-review tasks.

5. Multimodal and structured output techniques

With vision-enabled models, I started combining text with images (e.g., uploading architecture diagrams or dashboards).

Tip from experience: Be extremely specific in describing what the models should focus on.

Best practices I learned the hard way

• Start simple, then layer complexity: Over-engineered prompts from Day One usually backfire.
• Model specific tuning: Some models respond better to XML delimiters; others to explicit reasoning.
• Evaluation and versioning: Treat prompts like code if you track versions and run automated evals.
• Security guardrails: Always include instructions against prompt injections and respect data boundaries.
• When to stop prompting: For repetitive, high-stakes workflows, move to full agents or an orchestration framework.

Final takeaways for technical leaders

Advanced prompt engineering has now become a core competency for anyone responsible for enterprise AI outcomes. Start by picking one technique and apply it rigorously to a real business problem. Document before/ after and you will notice why it’s worth mastering.

The field continues evolving towards more automated and agentic systems, but the ability to precisely direct AI reasoning remains foundational.

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

Late in a large enterprise SAP transformation, the strategic governance conversations began to drift. Instead of executive decisions, we found ourselves debating whether the program needed dedicated testing, whether cutover required a full weekend, whether twenty Agile teams really needed coordination support and whether offshore resources were adding value at all.

The questions were not coming from the delivery teams. They were coming from the executive sponsor.

The sponsor had recently been elevated into a senior leadership role and had never sponsored a technology transformation at this scale. The challenge was not authority. The sponsor had every right to ask any question they wanted. The challenge was that strategic governance had quietly turned into a debate about delivery practices, because the sponsor did not yet have the transformation context to focus the conversation anywhere else.

This is not a story about a bad sponsor. The executive in this case was a capable senior leader with strong judgment and authentic intent. They had been placed into a role they had not yet been prepared for, and the pattern that followed was structural, not personal. It is one of the more common patterns I have observed across enterprise transformation programs, and one of the most consistently misdiagnosed.

Most program failures are not execution failures. They are sponsor mismatches.

When governance becomes a debate about delivery practices

When the sponsor does not understand what an enterprise transformation actually requires, governance forums stop functioning as decision bodies and start functioning as practice debates.

You see it in the questions that get asked. Why do we need a dedicated testing phase? Can the Build timeline be compressed? Why does cutover need a full weekend? Why do we need more Scrum Masters across 20 product teams? Can the US team simply work longer hours instead of using offshore resources? On one program, the sponsor suggested shifting the entire project’s working hours to India time, despite roughly 85 percent of the delivery organization being based in the United States.

None of these questions are unreasonable in isolation. Each one targets a real cost or timeline pressure. The problem is what is missing underneath them: an understanding of the operational risks the original choices were designed to mitigate.

When sponsors ask delivery-practice questions without that context, the program leadership team ends up defending the work instead of advancing it. Decision velocity drops. Trust between the program and its sponsor erodes. Senior delivery talent disengages from governance forums where the conversation never reaches the decisions they need made. What looks from the outside like an active sponsor producing engagement is, from inside the program, an active drain on the cycles needed to deliver.

The compounding cost is not unique to any single program. PMI’s research on executive sponsorship consistently identifies sponsor engagement quality, rather than sponsor presence alone, as one of the strongest predictors of project success. The visible symptom is debate. The actual cost is unmade decisions.

Authority is rarely the issue. Literacy is

When transformations stall under a mismatched sponsor, the diagnostic instinct is to question the sponsor’s authority. Are they senior enough? Do they have the cross-functional reach? Can they unblock?

In most of the programs I have led or advised, authority was not the limiting factor. The sponsor in the SAP program above had ample authority. They could unblock any decision the program needed. What had not been developed was the transformation literacy to know which decisions mattered, which were technical noise and which were execution risks that should not be optimized away.

This is what I have come to think of as the literacy problem. Sponsors elevated into transformation roles often have deep functional expertise (finance, operations, business unit leadership) but limited exposure to the distinct functions of PMO, organizational change management, agile delivery, testing and cutover, and how each one reduces a specific category of implementation risk. They are not expected to be SAP configuration experts. But they need enough transformation literacy to recognize which questions actually belong in a steering committee.

Harvard Business Review’s research on effective executive sponsorship has emphasized that sponsorship effectiveness depends as much on judgment as on authority. Judgment is where literacy becomes operational. A sponsor with authority but limited transformation literacy will optimize for speed and cost in ways that consistently underestimate risk. A sponsor with both will make the tradeoffs the program actually needs.

Prosci’s longstanding benchmark studies on change management have ranked active and visible executive sponsorship as the single greatest contributor to change success for two decades. The word that matters in that finding is active. Active sponsorship without transformation literacy can introduce real cost. Not because the sponsor is acting against the program, but because the optimization choices they make are based on incomplete information about what the program is built to protect against.

Shift the conversation from delivery practices to business risk

When the sponsor relationship is already in place and cannot be changed, the program leadership team has one move that consistently works: shift the conversation.

On the SAP program above, we stopped explaining why the testing phase existed. We started explaining the business risk of reducing it. We stopped debating the number of Scrum Masters. We started connecting delivery capacity to coordination across more than twenty Agile teams and the business cost of losing that coordination. We reframed offshore support as a way to maintain delivery momentum around the clock rather than asking the U.S. team to sustain fifteen-hour days.

The shift is from defending delivery practice to explaining business risk. The sponsor does not need to understand why testing takes the time it does. They need to understand what the program is exposed to if testing is compressed. They do not need to know how many Scrum Masters are statistically optimal for twenty Agile teams. They need to know what coordination breaks when the number is wrong.

This reframing accomplishes two things. First, it brings the conversation back to the level at which sponsors actually make decisions: tradeoffs between business outcomes and business risks. Second, it builds transformation literacy in the sponsor over time, almost as a byproduct. By the third or fourth iteration of business-risk-framed conversations, the sponsor begins to ask the right questions on their own.

In practice, this happens through small but deliberate moves. When the sponsor asks why a phase needs the time it takes, the program lead names two or three things that could go wrong if the time is cut and what each would cost the business. When the sponsor asks why a role is needed, the program lead names the work that would not get done without it. Every delivery-practice question gets converted into a business-risk answer.

The program leadership team’s job is not to make the sponsor an expert in SAP delivery. It is to provide enough transformation context so that executive decisions reflect both business priorities and implementation realities.

There are a few phrases I have used with executive sponsors over the years that capture the underlying issue. The sharpest one:

If the decision has to go above the sponsor, they are not the sponsor.

Sponsorship is defined by what the sponsor can decide without asking someone else. That is the test. Anything else is the appearance of sponsorship, not the substance.

For CIOs supporting enterprise transformation, the implication is direct. Sponsor selection, or sponsor preparation when selection is not an option, is not a hierarchy question. It is a transformation capability question. The same execution discipline that goes into defining decision rights, structuring governance and protecting delivery momentum should apply, with equal rigor, to assessing sponsor fit and building sponsor literacy before the program begins.

A sponsor does not need to be the technical expert. They do need to know when to trust the people who are.

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

Four months of Claude Code — that’s all it took for Uber to burn through its entire annual budget for AI. Token after token, engineers embraced the platform with few control mechanisms tying costs to outcomes. The result was a budget runaway and a clear case study in how limited oversight snowballs into an AI blowout.

This is a phenomenon I like to call “shadow tokens” — AI credits paid for by the company but largely invisible to decision-makers. Too many engineers have the final say over how much they consume and, therefore, what it costs. This all-you-can-eat attitude is part of the reason why Microsoft is reportedly winding down many internal licenses across key engineering teams and why one in five organizations is missing its AI spend forecast by more than 50%.

And the trend is only accelerating. By 2028, Gartner predicts that AI coding costs (driven by this kind of ungoverned consumption) will be as much per developer as the salary companies pay that person.

LLMs and agents introduce a new class of variable cost that scales with behavior rather than headcount, putting enterprises on the hook for tools that balloon with workload. I don’t see this as enterprises overspending because they’re reckless — it’s down to a lack of managerial oversight, budget alignment that demands a proven return on investment, and engineer education on how much is too much.

Going forward, CIOs need to thread the AI needle between governance that encourages transparency and reasonable spend without stifling innovation.

When shadow tokens result in real costs

The issue is that AI isn’t a traditional line item. Previously, enterprise leaders onboarded software-as-a-service (SaaS) with a good idea of the total cost. An allocated software seat or annual contract was a known quantity. The cloud added some variation (with fluctuations depending on hosting size), but instances were still modelable. AI flips this status quo on its head — the unit of consumption is behavior and the cost is exponential.

And these specifics aren’t immediately apparent at pilot. Tools can appear inexpensive in controlled experiments yet unpredictably scale depending on session length, context window size, model selection and whether agents run in parallel. This is the fallacy of the $20-per-seat enterprise plan — tokens are charged separately at API rates with no ceiling. The final dollar value of any session is set by factors that finance can’t always model in advance, particularly when these decisions usually rest with the engineers themselves.

According to Deloitte, only 21% of organizations deploying agents have a mature governance model, a real concern because they’re token-eating machines. This is what was happening at Uber — Claude Code in agentic mode was autonomously reading codebases, planning changes across dozens of files and opening pull requests. Each step quickly adds up, with Anthropic’s own documentation noting that agents consume approximately seven times as many tokens as standard sessions.

This is shadow IT and shadow AI, evolved. This time, however, many leaders approved the tool in question without guardrails governing consumption. AI hype adds fuel to the fire and normalizes long sessions. Uber’s CTO, for example, described a company-wide shift toward “agentic software engineering” with employees “who are quietly experimenting, quietly shipping and quietly pushing things forward”. This is an exciting way to test the limits of what’s possible, certainly, but it’s also a position that goes a long way to explaining how the company spent its annual AI budget by April.

Shifting the culture from usage to yield

Engineers haven’t done anything wrong here. In fact, they’re adopting and experimenting as instructed, with Uber creating leaderboards and ranking users by token consumption. More use led to a better ranking, reflecting a culture that lauds new ways of doing things. This behavior is known as “tokenmaxxing,” and its principal knock-on effect is shadow tokens — quantity-over-quality processes that leaders struggle to control until they’re fully realized in the budget. Of course, if management treats adoption metrics as performance metrics, then engineers can’t be blamed for using more tokens. The tension is that the teams driving adoption aren’t the ones managing spend.

None of this is meant to dismiss AI’s productivity possibilities and potential return on investment. Developers save 3.6 hours per week, achieve 60% higher pull request throughput and cut onboarding time in half with automation. Meanwhile, Uber shared that roughly 11% of live backend updates were written by agents with no human in the loop. However, these wins aren’t the problem — it’s that too many teams aren’t connecting input to output. I’ve spoken to admins who discovered their token spend had tripled in a single quarter after using heavier models or accidentally doubling up on agentic applications. Nobody knew until the financial damage was done.

Automation needs to happen sustainably with an eye on the bottom line. In my view, a much better metric for achieving this is AI yield — the measurable business or engineering output generated per dollar spent on tokens. Otherwise, without a feedback loop, even genuinely productive teams are flying blind.

Stopping token waste before an AI blowout

Creating that throughline between AI investment and token consumption starts with established financial metrics. This is possible via maximum spend limits (dictated by spend tagging, workload tiering and cost-per-output benchmarks) per team or project. Then, any additional allocation requires approval, closing the loop between the engineers spending the tokens and the leaders paying for them. AI isn’t cheap and teams should demonstrate a bang for their buck.

This is something we do with our engineering team at Hexnode. Resource allocation for Claude Code and Cursor is tied directly to ROI rather than letting consumption run open-ended. Given the pay-as-you-go nature of these tools, a firm usage limit per team offers simple but essential control.

Similarly, there’s room to apply some of the governance principles IT uses for device management. Things like policy enforcement, role-based access, real-time monitoring and automated alerts can flag usage behavior in advance. Uncovering such insights at the token layer works to identify power users and prevent excessive spending.

We also need to encourage cultures that praise outputs that actually achieve efficiency. AI applications that result in shipping faster, reducing rework and cutting review cycles are gains that should be celebrated. If your company hosts leaderboards, frame unnecessary token burn as wasteful rather than valuable. The organizations creating healthier consumption habits work with their engineers to understand not just how to use AI, but what responsible use looks like and what it costs.

This is a conversation teams need to have now. Anthropic just ended flat-rate pricing for programmatic workloads from June 15. Now, agents, continuous integration pipelines and automated workflows draw from a dedicated monthly credit pool billed separately from the subscription. Once that pool is exhausted, agent tasks either stop entirely or overflow to extra billing. Work can either get very expensive or grind to a halt for teams that aren’t prepared.

Getting a grip on shadow tokens means better rules and tools connecting spend to outcomes. Only by building the financial and cultural infrastructure that encourages sustainable adoption can leaders see what they’re spending, connect it to what they’re getting and course-correct before the costs become a crisis. Ultimately, shadow tokens are only invisible if we choose not to look.

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

For years, I have been saying that cybersecurity is no longer a technology problem. It has become a business leadership challenge.

Yet, despite record levels of spending, ever-growing security teams, increasingly sophisticated technologies and a constant stream of new regulations, organizations continue to suffer major cyber incidents with alarming regularity. Every week seems to bring news of another ransomware attack, supply chain compromise or data breach affecting organizations that many would have assumed were well protected.

The obvious conclusion is that we are asking the wrong questions.

Too many executive teams remain preoccupied with the latest threat actor, the newest security product the CISO wants to buy or the latest vulnerability making headlines. Those issues matter, but they are not what should be keeping CEOs awake at night.

In my view, there are three far more fundamental issues that deserve the attention of every chief executive.

1. Corporate complexity, and the widening gap between business leadership and cybersecurity reality

Perhaps the biggest cybersecurity risk facing large organizations today is not technical at all.

It is the growing disconnect between executive perception and operational reality.

Many boards genuinely believe their organizations are reasonably well protected. They receive regular dashboards showing improving maturity scores, increasing compliance levels, falling vulnerability counts and reassuring traffic-light reports.

Unfortunately, cyber attackers do not read dashboards.

Behind those executive reports often lies an increasingly complex technology landscape, thousands of unmanaged digital assets, ageing infrastructure, rampant shadow IT, fragmented ownership, inconsistent governance and security teams struggling to keep pace with relentless business change.

The problem is rarely a lack of effort.

It is that corporate complexity has reached a level where traditional governance mechanisms are no longer capable of providing an accurate picture of organizational resilience.

Executives believe they understand the level of cyber risk they face because they receive regular reports. Those reports often measure activity rather than resilience.

Governance committees end up debating around another percentage point of phishing awareness or vulnerability remediation, while fundamental issues remain unaddressed in the background.

2. Organizational inertia, and the need for executive structure to evolve faster

Cyber criminals continue to evolve rapidly. Large organizations generally do not.

This is the second issue that should concern every CEO.

Throughout my career, I have observed organizations repeatedly responding to new cyber threats by adding another technology platform, another monitoring capability, another compliance framework or another governance committee.

Very rarely do they stop to redesign how cybersecurity operates.

The result is what I described several years ago as the “Cybersecurity Spiral of Failure”.

• As complexity and regulation increase, organizations invest in more security products.
• More products create more complexity.
• More products and greater complexity generate more alerts.
• More alerts require more analysts.
• More analysts produce more reports.
• More reports continue to build up executive confidence.
• Meanwhile, the underlying structural weaknesses remain largely unchanged, technical debt piles up and costs escalate.

And when the inevitable breach eventually happens, reality reveals itself, but distrust also sets in between senior executives and security teams.

This is not a funding problem. Nor is it a skills problem. It is fundamentally an operating model problem.

Many organizations continue trying to solve twenty-first century challenges using governance, accountability, organizational and reporting structures designed twenty-five years ago.

The cybersecurity function itself has evolved dramatically. Many executive structures have not.

This organizational inertia extends beyond technology: It affects budgeting cycles, investment priorities, procurement processes, accountability models and decision-making speed.

Cyber attackers innovate every day. Organizational change often takes years.

That imbalance should worry every CEO.

3. Accelerating technological disruption, and how it challenges organizations in areas where they are intrinsically weak

The third issue is potentially the most significant over the coming decade.

• Artificial intelligence, autonomous agents and machine identities
• Software supply chain complexity.
• Quantum computing, and post-quantum cryptography

Each of these developments represents far more than another technical trend.

Together, they fundamentally change the dynamics of cybersecurity.

Artificial intelligence is transforming countless business processes. At the same time, it is also increasing both the speed and sophistication of cyber-attacks while simultaneously transforming defensive capabilities.

Organizations have become increasingly dependent on software ecosystems that extend far beyond their own direct control. Engaging with the supply chain in ways that lead to a genuine appreciation of the risks involved has become a key challenge for most cybersecurity practices.

Quantum computing may eventually invalidate much of today’s cryptographic algorithms, forcing organizations into one of the largest technology efforts since Y2K — but without the benefit of a fixed deadline and faced by a problem that is considerably more complex and hyperconnected IT estates that have little to do with those of the late 90s.

None of these challenges can be solved overnight: They require clear governance, sustained investment over a few years and cross-functional organizational coordination.

Most large organizations are weak on those three fronts: This is precisely why CEOs should be focusing on them now.

Waiting until some of those risks become obvious will almost certainly be too late.

Businesses naturally prioritise immediate commercial pressures. Cybersecurity often involves preparing for risks whose timing remains uncertain.

But one of the greatest leadership failures I keep seeing remains the inability of organizations to act decisively on known unknowns.

That tension explains why many organizations delay action until external events force them to respond. Unfortunately, cybersecurity rarely rewards late action.

Leadership will determine who succeeds

Cybersecurity discussions still frequently focus on technology. I believe they should focus far more on leadership.

Technology will continue evolving. Threat actors will continue adapting. Regulations will continue expanding. Those developments are inevitable.

What remains within the control of every CEO is how their organization responds.

Does cybersecurity remain an IT issue? Or is it recognised as an integral part of business resilience?

How is cybersecurity accountability assigned at executive level? Or does it still rest largely with a CISO hidden in the organization?

Does the board spend sufficient time discussing resilience? Or does cybersecurity appear only when approving budgets or reviewing incidents?

These questions will increasingly determine organizational success.

The companies that navigate the next decade successfully will not necessarily be those spending the most on cybersecurity. Nor will they be those deploying the latest security technologies first.

They will be the organizations whose leadership recognises that cybersecurity has become a permanent business capability — embedded into governance, strategy, operational decision-making and organizational culture.

That transformation cannot be delegated. It begins with the CEO.

And perhaps that is the single biggest issue that should keep every chief executive awake at night: Not when the next cyber-attack will happen, but whether their organization is evolving quickly enough on those matters to meet a threat landscape that is changing much faster than the business itself.

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

Predicting an outage is tricky business, but CIOs might want to circle Oct. 11, 2026, through Jan. 11, 2027, for likely trouble of a potentially widespread and puzzling nature.

That’s because a relatively trivial update to DNSSEC on Oct. 11, one that will take full effect by Jan. 11, is likely to deliver a series of seemingly unrelated system outages. This will come from oceans of dependencies from third-party, shadow, agentic, gen AI, SaaS, homegrown, and legacy apps — among many other quiet executable hiding spots, including virtual environments and containers.

Sai Joshitha Kathari, senior site reliability engineer at payment card giant Visa, says most enterprises have far more DNS-related exposure than they realize because of these many dependencies.

“This has the potential to create real downstream destruction when unresolved failures sit underneath important business functions,” Kathari says. 

The danger is that so many of these issues are either unknown to IT or handled by a third-party vendor and no one in IT has had reason to ask those vendors about DNS updates. 

“The risky areas are usually not the obvious managed DNS services. They are the older internal applications, hardcoded resolvers, containerized workloads, sidecar configurations, custom scripts, partner integrations, VM images, stale base images, and service-to-service dependencies that nobody has touched in a long time,” Kathari explains. “These systems can keep working quietly for years, then fail during a DNS or certificate-related change because they bypassed the normal platform standards.”

Independent technology analyst Carmi Levy says that CIOs need to take this event very seriously. 

“The two-pronged deadline — October 11, 2026, when the new Key Signing Key (KSK) begins signing the root zone, and January 11, 2027, when the old key is retired — should be marked in red on everyone’s calendar, just as December 31, 1999, once was,” Levy says. “Failure to comply could result in websites, critical business applications, and related resources dropping off the face of the Earth once the transition is complete.”

Levy adds: “Custom-built code that lives outside conventional support mechanisms may or may not function when the DNS changes go into effect.”

The DNSSEC update itself is straightforward, but it is also the first significant DNSSEC change — specifically a change in the trust anchor — since 2018. 

The rollout statement noted that “the trust anchor is formally known as the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) root zone Key Signing Key (KSK). The KSK is the cryptographic key at the core of the DNSSEC trust anchor and is used to verify that DNS responses are legitimate and have not been modified in transit.”

Expect nearly every enterprise to be impacted

Kim Davies, vice president of IANA Services and president of public technical identifiers at ICANN, says the extent of the impact on enterprises is unknowable, given the nature of shadow IT and other edge cases. 

But based on the massive number of dependencies both known and unknown in the typical global enterprise, Davies guesses that just about every enterprise will be impacted, to varying degrees. 

“In highly complex organizations, it is very likely there will be some impact in the corners, in the margins, of the organization,” Davies tells CIO. “DNS is such a core technology that underpins everything.”

As the updates propagate, hiccups will materialize, Davies notes. “When the system cannot validate the [DNS] information, it will treat it as suspect and DNS lookups will fail.”

Visa’s Kathari says, “Enterprises should expect some secondary DNS-related glitches when major DNSSEC-related changes happen, not necessarily because the core infrastructure teams will ignore the update, but because large environments have many hidden dependency paths.”

Making this problem far worse, Kathari notes, is that the glitches will likely initially look like anything other thana DNS glitch. That will force IT staff to waste a vast number of hours chasing causes that ultimately prove to be unrelated to the incidents. 

“The impact for CIOs is that DNS failures rarely announce themselves as DNS failures. They look like application timeouts, broken logins, failed API calls, queue lag, payment failures, partner connectivity issues, or random regional instability,” Kathari explains. “That makes troubleshooting slower because teams may spend hours looking at the application, database, network, or cloud provider before realizing name resolution is part of the failure path.”

Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, agrees that IT will likely spin its wheels chasing the wrong ghosts.

“A validation failure rarely stays in its lane. It surfaces as an application error, an API timeout, or a reachability problem, which turns a resolver fault into a coordination failure,” Gogia says. “The application team blames the network, the network team blames the cloud, and the user simply watches work stop.”

“Images and templates are the frontier most teams miss,” Gogia adds. “A resolver fixed in summer can be broken again in October the instant a stale golden image is redeployed, because automation no longer lets configuration drift slowly. It restores yesterday’s assumptions at machine speed.”

It is widely expected that enterprises will not have any problems executing the change or, more likely, relying on their hyperscalers to properly handle the change. That is the concern. 

“CIOs are being distracted so much with AI and this is such a deep in the weeds infrastructure issue that this can and willcatch people off-guard,” Justin Greis, CEO of consulting firm Acceligence, tells CIO. “I think we’ll see a meaningful number of enterprise disruptions associated with the DNSSEC trust anchor rollover. Not because the update itself is especially difficult, but because it will expose weaknesses that already exist inside many organizations.”

Most enterprise IT operations have had no reason to compile a comprehensive list of all DNS dependencies, but many will be instantly discovered in January. 

Potentially widespread fallout

A major retailer, for example, might suddenly be unable to connect with FedEx to arrange for deliveries or a hospital may find that test results are no longer being shared with patient portals. It might manifest as an assembly line that halts because an IIoT component can no longer share files with its vendor system or a truck fleet that stops being tracked. 

“There will almost certainly be systems that fall through the cracks. Some will be legacy applications that rely on outdated DNS configurations that have not been updated in years,” Greis says. “Others will be business-unit-developed tools, contractor-built solutions, embedded systems, manufacturing and industrial systems, or highly customized workloads that operate outside normal IT oversight. These are the types of systems that often surface during infrastructure events like this.”

Greis adds that many enterprises will discover in January problems created by their own automation.

“Over time, enterprises build layers of processes, templates, and deployment mechanisms that are reused across teams and environments,” Greis notes. “Even after DNS infrastructure is updated correctly, older settings can inadvertently be reintroduced through routine updates and system changes, creating intermittent and difficult-to-diagnose failures.”

The good news from this situation is that enterprises are not going to likely lose all DNS access if any of these glitches occur. But that may be of no comfort because even if the disruptions are only with small edge cases, that can still cause massive operational disruptions.

Cricket Liu, EVP and chief evangelist at Infoblox, gives the example of a DNS server that responds to factory-floor system queries.

“Or let’s say this disrupts [an enterprise’s key] SaaS application. All name resolution may stop and it will show a server failure. It will not deliver a response whenever I look anything up. That’s not subtle at all,” Liu says. “It’s highly likely that companies are going to see some effects.”

Back in 2017, the switchover was relatively uneventful, giving some CIOs hope that January 2027 will also be a non-event. But given the technology advancements in the last 10 years and the resulting tidal wave of new enterprise tech dependencies, few are realistically expecting no problems this go around. 

Impossible to predict what will happen

One of the top network experts on DNS effects in enterprises is Geoff Huston, chief scientist at the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), the regional Internet Registry administering IP addresses for the Asia Pacific region.

Huston says it is difficult to project what will happen in January until it happens.

“Just like the last time, we are flying blind with this key roll. Because nothing really terrible happened last time, there is some confidence that nothing terrible will happen this time, but we just can’t tell in advance as there are no good measurement approaches that allow us to peek inside the trust state of recursive resolvers,” he says.

As for potential edge-case glitches, Huston says it is possible, but if third-party vendors do not properly handle the update, there will be other issues as well, as the KSK cryptographic key used within DNSSEC signs and validates the keys that protect DNS records. 

“If it is not standards-compliant, then you have more problems than just the KSK roll,” Huston says, “as it raises the obvious question of ‘What else is not correctly implemented in the DNS resolver that I’m running?’”

As a silver lining, Acceligence’s Greis says any hiccups that result from the DNS KSK update may be a gift in disguise for CIOs. 

“The irony is that some of the most business-critical components in the technology stack are often the least visible because they work in the background,” Greis says. January “may reveal how much modern business resilience depends on infrastructure that many organizations rarely examine until something breaks. For CIOs, that’s the real lesson. This is not fundamentally a story about a DNS update. It is a story about operational visibility, resilience, and governance. Organizations that treat the rollover as a routine infrastructure task will likely complete the update and move on. Organizations that use it as an opportunity to understand and strengthen the foundations of their technology environment may gain far more value than simply avoiding an outage.”

Four months of Claude Code — that’s all it took for Uber to burn through its entire annual budget for AI. Token after token, engineers embraced the platform with few control mechanisms tying costs to outcomes. The result was a budget runaway and a clear case study in how limited oversight snowballs into an AI blowout.

This is a phenomenon I like to call “shadow tokens” — AI credits paid for by the company but largely invisible to decision-makers. Too many engineers have the final say over how much they consume and, therefore, what it costs. This all-you-can-eat attitude is part of the reason why Microsoft is reportedly winding down many internal licenses across key engineering teams and why one in five organizations is missing its AI spend forecast by more than 50%.

And the trend is only accelerating. By 2028, Gartner predicts that AI coding costs (driven by this kind of ungoverned consumption) will be as much per developer as the salary companies pay that person.

LLMs and agents introduce a new class of variable cost that scales with behavior rather than headcount, putting enterprises on the hook for tools that balloon with workload. I don’t see this as enterprises overspending because they’re reckless — it’s down to a lack of managerial oversight, budget alignment that demands a proven return on investment, and engineer education on how much is too much.

Going forward, CIOs need to thread the AI needle between governance that encourages transparency and reasonable spend without stifling innovation.

When shadow tokens result in real costs

The issue is that AI isn’t a traditional line item. Previously, enterprise leaders onboarded software-as-a-service (SaaS) with a good idea of the total cost. An allocated software seat or annual contract was a known quantity. The cloud added some variation (with fluctuations depending on hosting size), but instances were still modelable. AI flips this status quo on its head — the unit of consumption is behavior and the cost is exponential.

And these specifics aren’t immediately apparent at pilot. Tools can appear inexpensive in controlled experiments yet unpredictably scale depending on session length, context window size, model selection and whether agents run in parallel. This is the fallacy of the $20-per-seat enterprise plan — tokens are charged separately at API rates with no ceiling. The final dollar value of any session is set by factors that finance can’t always model in advance, particularly when these decisions usually rest with the engineers themselves.

According to Deloitte, only 21% of organizations deploying agents have a mature governance model, a real concern because they’re token-eating machines. This is what was happening at Uber — Claude Code in agentic mode was autonomously reading codebases, planning changes across dozens of files and opening pull requests. Each step quickly adds up, with Anthropic’s own documentation noting that agents consume approximately seven times as many tokens as standard sessions.

This is shadow IT and shadow AI, evolved. This time, however, many leaders approved the tool in question without guardrails governing consumption. AI hype adds fuel to the fire and normalizes long sessions. Uber’s CTO, for example, described a company-wide shift toward “agentic software engineering” with employees “who are quietly experimenting, quietly shipping and quietly pushing things forward”. This is an exciting way to test the limits of what’s possible, certainly, but it’s also a position that goes a long way to explaining how the company spent its annual AI budget by April.

Shifting the culture from usage to yield

Engineers haven’t done anything wrong here. In fact, they’re adopting and experimenting as instructed, with Uber creating leaderboards and ranking users by token consumption. More use led to a better ranking, reflecting a culture that lauds new ways of doing things. This behavior is known as “tokenmaxxing,” and its principal knock-on effect is shadow tokens — quantity-over-quality processes that leaders struggle to control until they’re fully realized in the budget. Of course, if management treats adoption metrics as performance metrics, then engineers can’t be blamed for using more tokens. The tension is that the teams driving adoption aren’t the ones managing spend.

None of this is meant to dismiss AI’s productivity possibilities and potential return on investment. Developers save 3.6 hours per week, achieve 60% higher pull request throughput and cut onboarding time in half with automation. Meanwhile, Uber shared that roughly 11% of live backend updates were written by agents with no human in the loop. However, these wins aren’t the problem — it’s that too many teams aren’t connecting input to output. I’ve spoken to admins who discovered their token spend had tripled in a single quarter after using heavier models or accidentally doubling up on agentic applications. Nobody knew until the financial damage was done.

Automation needs to happen sustainably with an eye on the bottom line. In my view, a much better metric for achieving this is AI yield — the measurable business or engineering output generated per dollar spent on tokens. Otherwise, without a feedback loop, even genuinely productive teams are flying blind.

Stopping token waste before an AI blowout

Creating that throughline between AI investment and token consumption starts with established financial metrics. This is possible via maximum spend limits (dictated by spend tagging, workload tiering and cost-per-output benchmarks) per team or project. Then, any additional allocation requires approval, closing the loop between the engineers spending the tokens and the leaders paying for them. AI isn’t cheap and teams should demonstrate a bang for their buck.

This is something we do with our engineering team at Hexnode. Resource allocation for Claude Code and Cursor is tied directly to ROI rather than letting consumption run open-ended. Given the pay-as-you-go nature of these tools, a firm usage limit per team offers simple but essential control.

Similarly, there’s room to apply some of the governance principles IT uses for device management. Things like policy enforcement, role-based access, real-time monitoring and automated alerts can flag usage behavior in advance. Uncovering such insights at the token layer works to identify power users and prevent excessive spending.

We also need to encourage cultures that praise outputs that actually achieve efficiency. AI applications that result in shipping faster, reducing rework and cutting review cycles are gains that should be celebrated. If your company hosts leaderboards, frame unnecessary token burn as wasteful rather than valuable. The organizations creating healthier consumption habits work with their engineers to understand not just how to use AI, but what responsible use looks like and what it costs.

This is a conversation teams need to have now. Anthropic just ended flat-rate pricing for programmatic workloads from June 15. Now, agents, continuous integration pipelines and automated workflows draw from a dedicated monthly credit pool billed separately from the subscription. Once that pool is exhausted, agent tasks either stop entirely or overflow to extra billing. Work can either get very expensive or grind to a halt for teams that aren’t prepared.

Getting a grip on shadow tokens means better rules and tools connecting spend to outcomes. Only by building the financial and cultural infrastructure that encourages sustainable adoption can leaders see what they’re spending, connect it to what they’re getting and course-correct before the costs become a crisis. Ultimately, shadow tokens are only invisible if we choose not to look.

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

Traditional phishing techniques are in decline as a result of the disruption of the Tycoon2FA phishing-as-a-service (PHaaS) platform, Microsoft said in a new report, “Email threat landscape: Q2 2026 trends and insights”.

“Phishing volume linked to the platform fell 92% from pre-disruption averages, including QR code phishing and CAPTCHA-gated phishing both declining from their March highs,” the company wrote in the report.

The takedown reduced activity across multiple phishing categories, forcing attackers to shift to newer delivery methods.

Riding this shift in were a few notable phishing campaigns, including an automated business email compromise (BEC) campaign that reached 42,000 organizations in under three hours, and a multi-stage phishing campaign that used nested email (EML) files, calendar invitations, and a Microsoft authentication redirect to deliver malware.

To counter phishing attacks, Microsoft recommends blocking emails containing known bad URLs/ subject fields, enabling password-less authentication methods, or moving to MFA for accounts that still require passwords.

Tycoon2FA disruption sent attackers exploring

The take-down of Tycoon2FA forced its operators to abandon portions of their infrastructure and rework hosting, domain registrations, and delivery mechanisms.

“After falling 15% in March and another 22% in April, Tycoon2FA-linked phishing volume dropped 74% in May to just 1.5 million messages, then fell another 20% in June to 1.2 million, by far the lowest monthly volumes observed in at least a year,” Microsoft said.

The decline extended to QR Code lures and fake CAPTCHA pages, two phishing techniques in which Tycoon2FA accounted for 12% and 14% of industry activity in June, respectively. This indicated that the platform’s customer base had not been able to migrate to a replacement infrastructure.

But cutting off one head of the hacker hydra only gave rise to new tactics elsewhere.

The adaptation came in the form of using Microsoft Teams as a social engineering channel. Attackers established conversations to build trust before attempting credential theft or delivering malicious payloads. “Teams-based phishing volume climbed steadily throughout Q2, with the average number of detected attacks rising 19% from March to April, holding roughly flat into May (+1%), then increasing another 10% into June,” Microsoft said.

Microsoft also observed a highly automated BEC campaign that reached over 67,000 users using scripted emails, Amazon Simple Email Service (SES), and engagement tracking, alongside a separate phishing campaign targeting 107,000 users that abused Microsoft’s authentication flow and trusted cloud services, including Teams archive recording and ICS calendar invite, to disguise malware delivery behind legitimate infrastructure.

Phishing changes but the defense doesn’t

While QR Code and Captcha-based phishing attacks dropped significantly in the second quarter, business email compromise (BEC) charted jumped 121% between March and April, before dropping down again in May.

QR Code phishing represented 8.3 million attacks in June 2026, down from a peak of 18.7 million in March. Similarly, Captcha-gated phishing fell from 12 million attacks in March to 2.2 million in June.

BEC attacks hit 9 million in March, falling to 3.9 million in June.

But even as these phishing classics lost momentum and newer techniques emerged, Microsoft’s defensive advice remained rooted in the basics. It noted organizations should complement email filtering with phishing-resistant authentication such as passkeys and phishing-resistant MFA to reduce the effectiveness of credential theft campaigns.

The company also recommended strengthening Exchange Online Protection and Microsoft Defender for Office 365 with capabilities such as Safe links and Zero-hour Auto Purge (ZAP), in which malicious emails already delivered to mailboxes are removed before they are read, alongside enforcing password-less authentication methods like Windows Hello, FIDO keys, and Microsoft Authenticator.

Microsoft concluded its report with a list of indicators of compromise (IoCs) from the threats observed in the quarter to support detection efforts.

This article first appeared on CSO.

Traditional phishing techniques are in decline as a result of the disruption of the Tycoon2FA phishing-as-a-service (PHaaS) platform, Microsoft said in a new report, “Email threat landscape: Q2 2026 trends and insights”.

“Phishing volume linked to the platform fell 92% from pre-disruption averages, including QR code phishing and CAPTCHA-gated phishing both declining from their March highs,” the company wrote in the report.

The takedown reduced activity across multiple phishing categories, forcing attackers to shift to newer delivery methods.

Riding this shift in were a few notable phishing campaigns, including an automated business email compromise (BEC) campaign that reached 42,000 organizations in under three hours, and a multi-stage phishing campaign that used nested email (EML) files, calendar invitations, and a Microsoft authentication redirect to deliver malware.

To counter phishing attacks, Microsoft recommends blocking emails containing known bad URLs/ subject fields, enabling password-less authentication methods, or moving to MFA for accounts that still require passwords.

Tycoon2FA disruption sent attackers exploring

The take-down of Tycoon2FA forced its operators to abandon portions of their infrastructure and rework hosting, domain registrations, and delivery mechanisms.

“After falling 15% in March and another 22% in April, Tycoon2FA-linked phishing volume dropped 74% in May to just 1.5 million messages, then fell another 20% in June to 1.2 million, by far the lowest monthly volumes observed in at least a year,” Microsoft said.

The decline extended to QR Code lures and fake CAPTCHA pages, two phishing techniques in which Tycoon2FA accounted for 12% and 14% of industry activity in June, respectively. This indicated that the platform’s customer base had not been able to migrate to a replacement infrastructure.

But cutting off one head of the hacker hydra only gave rise to new tactics elsewhere.

The adaptation came in the form of using Microsoft Teams as a social engineering channel. Attackers established conversations to build trust before attempting credential theft or delivering malicious payloads. “Teams-based phishing volume climbed steadily throughout Q2, with the average number of detected attacks rising 19% from March to April, holding roughly flat into May (+1%), then increasing another 10% into June,” Microsoft said.

Microsoft also observed a highly automated BEC campaign that reached over 67,000 users using scripted emails, Amazon Simple Email Service (SES), and engagement tracking, alongside a separate phishing campaign targeting 107,000 users that abused Microsoft’s authentication flow and trusted cloud services, including Teams archive recording and ICS calendar invite, to disguise malware delivery behind legitimate infrastructure.

Phishing changes but the defense doesn’t

While QR Code and Captcha-based phishing attacks dropped significantly in the second quarter, business email compromise (BEC) charted jumped 121% between March and April, before dropping down again in May.

QR Code phishing represented 8.3 million attacks in June 2026, down from a peak of 18.7 million in March. Similarly, Captcha-gated phishing fell from 12 million attacks in March to 2.2 million in June.

BEC attacks hit 9 million in March, falling to 3.9 million in June.

But even as these phishing classics lost momentum and newer techniques emerged, Microsoft’s defensive advice remained rooted in the basics. It noted organizations should complement email filtering with phishing-resistant authentication such as passkeys and phishing-resistant MFA to reduce the effectiveness of credential theft campaigns.

The company also recommended strengthening Exchange Online Protection and Microsoft Defender for Office 365 with capabilities such as Safe links and Zero-hour Auto Purge (ZAP), in which malicious emails already delivered to mailboxes are removed before they are read, alongside enforcing password-less authentication methods like Windows Hello, FIDO keys, and Microsoft Authenticator.

Microsoft concluded its report with a list of indicators of compromise (IoCs) from the threats observed in the quarter to support detection efforts.

For years, I have been saying that cybersecurity is no longer a technology problem. It has become a business leadership challenge.

Yet, despite record levels of spending, ever-growing security teams, increasingly sophisticated technologies and a constant stream of new regulations, organizations continue to suffer major cyber incidents with alarming regularity. Every week seems to bring news of another ransomware attack, supply chain compromise or data breach affecting organizations that many would have assumed were well protected.

The obvious conclusion is that we are asking the wrong questions.

Too many executive teams remain preoccupied with the latest threat actor, the newest security product the CISO wants to buy or the latest vulnerability making headlines. Those issues matter, but they are not what should be keeping CEOs awake at night.

In my view, there are three far more fundamental issues that deserve the attention of every chief executive.

1. Corporate complexity, and the widening gap between business leadership and cybersecurity reality

Perhaps the biggest cybersecurity risk facing large organizations today is not technical at all.

It is the growing disconnect between executive perception and operational reality.

Many boards genuinely believe their organizations are reasonably well protected. They receive regular dashboards showing improving maturity scores, increasing compliance levels, falling vulnerability counts and reassuring traffic-light reports.

Unfortunately, cyber attackers do not read dashboards.

Behind those executive reports often lies an increasingly complex technology landscape, thousands of unmanaged digital assets, ageing infrastructure, rampant shadow IT, fragmented ownership, inconsistent governance and security teams struggling to keep pace with relentless business change.

The problem is rarely a lack of effort.

It is that corporate complexity has reached a level where traditional governance mechanisms are no longer capable of providing an accurate picture of organizational resilience.

Executives believe they understand the level of cyber risk they face because they receive regular reports. Those reports often measure activity rather than resilience.

Governance committees end up debating around another percentage point of phishing awareness or vulnerability remediation, while fundamental issues remain unaddressed in the background.

2. Organizational inertia, and the need for executive structure to evolve faster

Cyber criminals continue to evolve rapidly. Large organizations generally do not.

This is the second issue that should concern every CEO.

Throughout my career, I have observed organizations repeatedly responding to new cyber threats by adding another technology platform, another monitoring capability, another compliance framework or another governance committee.

Very rarely do they stop to redesign how cybersecurity operates.

The result is what I described several years ago as the “Cybersecurity Spiral of Failure”.

• As complexity and regulation increase, organizations invest in more security products.
• More products create more complexity.
• More products and greater complexity generate more alerts.
• More alerts require more analysts.
• More analysts produce more reports.
• More reports continue to build up executive confidence.
• Meanwhile, the underlying structural weaknesses remain largely unchanged, technical debt piles up and costs escalate.

And when the inevitable breach eventually happens, reality reveals itself, but distrust also sets in between senior executives and security teams.

This is not a funding problem. Nor is it a skills problem. It is fundamentally an operating model problem.

Many organizations continue trying to solve twenty-first century challenges using governance, accountability, organizational and reporting structures designed twenty-five years ago.

The cybersecurity function itself has evolved dramatically. Many executive structures have not.

This organizational inertia extends beyond technology: It affects budgeting cycles, investment priorities, procurement processes, accountability models and decision-making speed.

Cyber attackers innovate every day. Organizational change often takes years.

That imbalance should worry every CEO.

3. Accelerating technological disruption, and how it challenges organizations in areas where they are intrinsically weak

The third issue is potentially the most significant over the coming decade.

• Artificial intelligence, autonomous agents and machine identities
• Software supply chain complexity.
• Quantum computing, and post-quantum cryptography

Each of these developments represents far more than another technical trend.

Together, they fundamentally change the dynamics of cybersecurity.

Artificial intelligence is transforming countless business processes. At the same time, it is also increasing both the speed and sophistication of cyber-attacks while simultaneously transforming defensive capabilities.

Organizations have become increasingly dependent on software ecosystems that extend far beyond their own direct control. Engaging with the supply chain in ways that lead to a genuine appreciation of the risks involved has become a key challenge for most cybersecurity practices.

Quantum computing may eventually invalidate much of today’s cryptographic algorithms, forcing organizations into one of the largest technology efforts since Y2K — but without the benefit of a fixed deadline and faced by a problem that is considerably more complex and hyperconnected IT estates that have little to do with those of the late 90s.

None of these challenges can be solved overnight: They require clear governance, sustained investment over a few years and cross-functional organizational coordination.

Most large organizations are weak on those three fronts: This is precisely why CEOs should be focusing on them now.

Waiting until some of those risks become obvious will almost certainly be too late.

Businesses naturally prioritise immediate commercial pressures. Cybersecurity often involves preparing for risks whose timing remains uncertain.

But one of the greatest leadership failures I keep seeing remains the inability of organizations to act decisively on known unknowns.

That tension explains why many organizations delay action until external events force them to respond. Unfortunately, cybersecurity rarely rewards late action.

Leadership will determine who succeeds

Cybersecurity discussions still frequently focus on technology. I believe they should focus far more on leadership.

Technology will continue evolving. Threat actors will continue adapting. Regulations will continue expanding. Those developments are inevitable.

What remains within the control of every CEO is how their organization responds.

Does cybersecurity remain an IT issue? Or is it recognised as an integral part of business resilience?

How is cybersecurity accountability assigned at executive level? Or does it still rest largely with a CISO hidden in the organization?

Does the board spend sufficient time discussing resilience? Or does cybersecurity appear only when approving budgets or reviewing incidents?

These questions will increasingly determine organizational success.

The companies that navigate the next decade successfully will not necessarily be those spending the most on cybersecurity. Nor will they be those deploying the latest security technologies first.

They will be the organizations whose leadership recognises that cybersecurity has become a permanent business capability — embedded into governance, strategy, operational decision-making and organizational culture.

That transformation cannot be delegated. It begins with the CEO.

And perhaps that is the single biggest issue that should keep every chief executive awake at night: Not when the next cyber-attack will happen, but whether their organization is evolving quickly enough on those matters to meet a threat landscape that is changing much faster than the business itself.

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

Predicting an outage is tricky business, but CIOs might want to circle Oct. 11, 2026, through Jan. 11, 2027, for likely trouble of a potentially widespread and puzzling nature.

That’s because a relatively trivial update to DNSSEC on Oct. 11, one that will take full effect by Jan. 11, is likely to deliver a series of seemingly unrelated system outages. This will come from oceans of dependencies from third-party, shadow, agentic, gen AI, SaaS, homegrown, and legacy apps — among many other quiet executable hiding spots, including virtual environments and containers.

Sai Joshitha Kathari, senior site reliability engineer at payment card giant Visa, says most enterprises have far more DNS-related exposure than they realize because of these many dependencies.

“This has the potential to create real downstream destruction when unresolved failures sit underneath important business functions,” Kathari says. 

The danger is that so many of these issues are either unknown to IT or handled by a third-party vendor and no one in IT has had reason to ask those vendors about DNS updates. 

“The risky areas are usually not the obvious managed DNS services. They are the older internal applications, hardcoded resolvers, containerized workloads, sidecar configurations, custom scripts, partner integrations, VM images, stale base images, and service-to-service dependencies that nobody has touched in a long time,” Kathari explains. “These systems can keep working quietly for years, then fail during a DNS or certificate-related change because they bypassed the normal platform standards.”

Independent technology analyst Carmi Levy says that CIOs need to take this event very seriously. 

“The two-pronged deadline — October 11, 2026, when the new Key Signing Key (KSK) begins signing the root zone, and January 11, 2027, when the old key is retired — should be marked in red on everyone’s calendar, just as December 31, 1999, once was,” Levy says. “Failure to comply could result in websites, critical business applications, and related resources dropping off the face of the Earth once the transition is complete.”

Levy adds: “Custom-built code that lives outside conventional support mechanisms may or may not function when the DNS changes go into effect.”

The DNSSEC update itself is straightforward, but it is also the first significant DNSSEC change — specifically a change in the trust anchor — since 2018. 

The rollout statement noted that “the trust anchor is formally known as the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) root zone Key Signing Key (KSK). The KSK is the cryptographic key at the core of the DNSSEC trust anchor and is used to verify that DNS responses are legitimate and have not been modified in transit.”

Expect nearly every enterprise to be impacted

Kim Davies, vice president of IANA Services and president of public technical identifiers at ICANN, says the extent of the impact on enterprises is unknowable, given the nature of shadow IT and other edge cases. 

But based on the massive number of dependencies both known and unknown in the typical global enterprise, Davies guesses that just about every enterprise will be impacted, to varying degrees. 

“In highly complex organizations, it is very likely there will be some impact in the corners, in the margins, of the organization,” Davies tells CIO. “DNS is such a core technology that underpins everything.”

As the updates propagate, hiccups will materialize, Davies notes. “When the system cannot validate the [DNS] information, it will treat it as suspect and DNS lookups will fail.”

Visa’s Kathari says, “Enterprises should expect some secondary DNS-related glitches when major DNSSEC-related changes happen, not necessarily because the core infrastructure teams will ignore the update, but because large environments have many hidden dependency paths.”

Making this problem far worse, Kathari notes, is that the glitches will likely initially look like anything other thana DNS glitch. That will force IT staff to waste a vast number of hours chasing causes that ultimately prove to be unrelated to the incidents. 

“The impact for CIOs is that DNS failures rarely announce themselves as DNS failures. They look like application timeouts, broken logins, failed API calls, queue lag, payment failures, partner connectivity issues, or random regional instability,” Kathari explains. “That makes troubleshooting slower because teams may spend hours looking at the application, database, network, or cloud provider before realizing name resolution is part of the failure path.”

Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, agrees that IT will likely spin its wheels chasing the wrong ghosts.

“A validation failure rarely stays in its lane. It surfaces as an application error, an API timeout, or a reachability problem, which turns a resolver fault into a coordination failure,” Gogia says. “The application team blames the network, the network team blames the cloud, and the user simply watches work stop.”

“Images and templates are the frontier most teams miss,” Gogia adds. “A resolver fixed in summer can be broken again in October the instant a stale golden image is redeployed, because automation no longer lets configuration drift slowly. It restores yesterday’s assumptions at machine speed.”

It is widely expected that enterprises will not have any problems executing the change or, more likely, relying on their hyperscalers to properly handle the change. That is the concern. 

“CIOs are being distracted so much with AI and this is such a deep in the weeds infrastructure issue that this can and willcatch people off-guard,” Justin Greis, CEO of consulting firm Acceligence, tells CIO. “I think we’ll see a meaningful number of enterprise disruptions associated with the DNSSEC trust anchor rollover. Not because the update itself is especially difficult, but because it will expose weaknesses that already exist inside many organizations.”

Most enterprise IT operations have had no reason to compile a comprehensive list of all DNS dependencies, but many will be instantly discovered in January. 

Potentially widespread fallout

A major retailer, for example, might suddenly be unable to connect with FedEx to arrange for deliveries or a hospital may find that test results are no longer being shared with patient portals. It might manifest as an assembly line that halts because an IIoT component can no longer share files with its vendor system or a truck fleet that stops being tracked. 

“There will almost certainly be systems that fall through the cracks. Some will be legacy applications that rely on outdated DNS configurations that have not been updated in years,” Greis says. “Others will be business-unit-developed tools, contractor-built solutions, embedded systems, manufacturing and industrial systems, or highly customized workloads that operate outside normal IT oversight. These are the types of systems that often surface during infrastructure events like this.”

Greis adds that many enterprises will discover in January problems created by their own automation.

“Over time, enterprises build layers of processes, templates, and deployment mechanisms that are reused across teams and environments,” Greis notes. “Even after DNS infrastructure is updated correctly, older settings can inadvertently be reintroduced through routine updates and system changes, creating intermittent and difficult-to-diagnose failures.”

The good news from this situation is that enterprises are not going to likely lose all DNS access if any of these glitches occur. But that may be of no comfort because even if the disruptions are only with small edge cases, that can still cause massive operational disruptions.

Cricket Liu, EVP and chief evangelist at Infoblox, gives the example of a DNS server that responds to factory-floor system queries.

“Or let’s say this disrupts [an enterprise’s key] SaaS application. All name resolution may stop and it will show a server failure. It will not deliver a response whenever I look anything up. That’s not subtle at all,” Liu says. “It’s highly likely that companies are going to see some effects.”

Back in 2017, the switchover was relatively uneventful, giving some CIOs hope that January 2027 will also be a non-event. But given the technology advancements in the last 10 years and the resulting tidal wave of new enterprise tech dependencies, few are realistically expecting no problems this go around. 

Impossible to predict what will happen

One of the top network experts on DNS effects in enterprises is Geoff Huston, chief scientist at the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), the regional Internet Registry administering IP addresses for the Asia Pacific region.

Huston says it is difficult to project what will happen in January until it happens.

“Just like the last time, we are flying blind with this key roll. Because nothing really terrible happened last time, there is some confidence that nothing terrible will happen this time, but we just can’t tell in advance as there are no good measurement approaches that allow us to peek inside the trust state of recursive resolvers,” he says.

As for potential edge-case glitches, Huston says it is possible, but if third-party vendors do not properly handle the update, there will be other issues as well, as the KSK cryptographic key used within DNSSEC signs and validates the keys that protect DNS records. 

“If it is not standards-compliant, then you have more problems than just the KSK roll,” Huston says, “as it raises the obvious question of ‘What else is not correctly implemented in the DNS resolver that I’m running?’”

As a silver lining, Acceligence’s Greis says any hiccups that result from the DNS KSK update may be a gift in disguise for CIOs. 

“The irony is that some of the most business-critical components in the technology stack are often the least visible because they work in the background,” Greis says. January “may reveal how much modern business resilience depends on infrastructure that many organizations rarely examine until something breaks. For CIOs, that’s the real lesson. This is not fundamentally a story about a DNS update. It is a story about operational visibility, resilience, and governance. Organizations that treat the rollover as a routine infrastructure task will likely complete the update and move on. Organizations that use it as an opportunity to understand and strengthen the foundations of their technology environment may gain far more value than simply avoiding an outage.”

Late in a large enterprise SAP transformation, the strategic governance conversations began to drift. Instead of executive decisions, we found ourselves debating whether the program needed dedicated testing, whether cutover required a full weekend, whether twenty Agile teams really needed coordination support and whether offshore resources were adding value at all.

The questions were not coming from the delivery teams. They were coming from the executive sponsor.

The sponsor had recently been elevated into a senior leadership role and had never sponsored a technology transformation at this scale. The challenge was not authority. The sponsor had every right to ask any question they wanted. The challenge was that strategic governance had quietly turned into a debate about delivery practices, because the sponsor did not yet have the transformation context to focus the conversation anywhere else.

This is not a story about a bad sponsor. The executive in this case was a capable senior leader with strong judgment and authentic intent. They had been placed into a role they had not yet been prepared for, and the pattern that followed was structural, not personal. It is one of the more common patterns I have observed across enterprise transformation programs, and one of the most consistently misdiagnosed.

Most program failures are not execution failures. They are sponsor mismatches.

When governance becomes a debate about delivery practices

When the sponsor does not understand what an enterprise transformation actually requires, governance forums stop functioning as decision bodies and start functioning as practice debates.

You see it in the questions that get asked. Why do we need a dedicated testing phase? Can the Build timeline be compressed? Why does cutover need a full weekend? Why do we need more Scrum Masters across 20 product teams? Can the US team simply work longer hours instead of using offshore resources? On one program, the sponsor suggested shifting the entire project’s working hours to India time, despite roughly 85 percent of the delivery organization being based in the United States.

None of these questions are unreasonable in isolation. Each one targets a real cost or timeline pressure. The problem is what is missing underneath them: an understanding of the operational risks the original choices were designed to mitigate.

When sponsors ask delivery-practice questions without that context, the program leadership team ends up defending the work instead of advancing it. Decision velocity drops. Trust between the program and its sponsor erodes. Senior delivery talent disengages from governance forums where the conversation never reaches the decisions they need made. What looks from the outside like an active sponsor producing engagement is, from inside the program, an active drain on the cycles needed to deliver.

The compounding cost is not unique to any single program. PMI’s research on executive sponsorship consistently identifies sponsor engagement quality, rather than sponsor presence alone, as one of the strongest predictors of project success. The visible symptom is debate. The actual cost is unmade decisions.

Authority is rarely the issue. Literacy is

When transformations stall under a mismatched sponsor, the diagnostic instinct is to question the sponsor’s authority. Are they senior enough? Do they have the cross-functional reach? Can they unblock?

In most of the programs I have led or advised, authority was not the limiting factor. The sponsor in the SAP program above had ample authority. They could unblock any decision the program needed. What had not been developed was the transformation literacy to know which decisions mattered, which were technical noise and which were execution risks that should not be optimized away.

This is what I have come to think of as the literacy problem. Sponsors elevated into transformation roles often have deep functional expertise (finance, operations, business unit leadership) but limited exposure to the distinct functions of PMO, organizational change management, agile delivery, testing and cutover, and how each one reduces a specific category of implementation risk. They are not expected to be SAP configuration experts. But they need enough transformation literacy to recognize which questions actually belong in a steering committee.

Harvard Business Review’s research on effective executive sponsorship has emphasized that sponsorship effectiveness depends as much on judgment as on authority. Judgment is where literacy becomes operational. A sponsor with authority but limited transformation literacy will optimize for speed and cost in ways that consistently underestimate risk. A sponsor with both will make the tradeoffs the program actually needs.

Prosci’s longstanding benchmark studies on change management have ranked active and visible executive sponsorship as the single greatest contributor to change success for two decades. The word that matters in that finding is active. Active sponsorship without transformation literacy can introduce real cost. Not because the sponsor is acting against the program, but because the optimization choices they make are based on incomplete information about what the program is built to protect against.

Shift the conversation from delivery practices to business risk

When the sponsor relationship is already in place and cannot be changed, the program leadership team has one move that consistently works: shift the conversation.

On the SAP program above, we stopped explaining why the testing phase existed. We started explaining the business risk of reducing it. We stopped debating the number of Scrum Masters. We started connecting delivery capacity to coordination across more than twenty Agile teams and the business cost of losing that coordination. We reframed offshore support as a way to maintain delivery momentum around the clock rather than asking the U.S. team to sustain fifteen-hour days.

The shift is from defending delivery practice to explaining business risk. The sponsor does not need to understand why testing takes the time it does. They need to understand what the program is exposed to if testing is compressed. They do not need to know how many Scrum Masters are statistically optimal for twenty Agile teams. They need to know what coordination breaks when the number is wrong.

This reframing accomplishes two things. First, it brings the conversation back to the level at which sponsors actually make decisions: tradeoffs between business outcomes and business risks. Second, it builds transformation literacy in the sponsor over time, almost as a byproduct. By the third or fourth iteration of business-risk-framed conversations, the sponsor begins to ask the right questions on their own.

In practice, this happens through small but deliberate moves. When the sponsor asks why a phase needs the time it takes, the program lead names two or three things that could go wrong if the time is cut and what each would cost the business. When the sponsor asks why a role is needed, the program lead names the work that would not get done without it. Every delivery-practice question gets converted into a business-risk answer.

The program leadership team’s job is not to make the sponsor an expert in SAP delivery. It is to provide enough transformation context so that executive decisions reflect both business priorities and implementation realities.

There are a few phrases I have used with executive sponsors over the years that capture the underlying issue. The sharpest one:

If the decision has to go above the sponsor, they are not the sponsor.

Sponsorship is defined by what the sponsor can decide without asking someone else. That is the test. Anything else is the appearance of sponsorship, not the substance.

For CIOs supporting enterprise transformation, the implication is direct. Sponsor selection, or sponsor preparation when selection is not an option, is not a hierarchy question. It is a transformation capability question. The same execution discipline that goes into defining decision rights, structuring governance and protecting delivery momentum should apply, with equal rigor, to assessing sponsor fit and building sponsor literacy before the program begins.

A sponsor does not need to be the technical expert. They do need to know when to trust the people who are.

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

The cybersecurity landscape has evolved beyond human scale. Today’s adversaries have replaced predictable, manual playbooks with machine-generated attack chains that can breach traditional controls in seconds. To bridge the gap, organizations must move past legacy, reactive controls and embrace a fundamentally different, AI-driven architecture: Agentic Endpoint Security (AES). 

AES represents a paradigm shift, moving security from a passive monitor to an active participant in the defense lifecycle. It provides the visibility and automated guardrails necessary to govern autonomous AI agents and agentic tools, ensuring that as your workforce scales with AI, your security posture remains unbreakable. 

With autonomous AI agents now capable of planning and executing multi-stage attacks at machine speed, the pressure on traditional security operations (SOC) has reached a breaking point. To survive this shift, the strategy is clear: we must fight AI with AI. 

Here is how AI-driven defense, pioneered by Cortex XDR and the era of Agentic Endpoint Security, is fundamentally rewriting the cybersecurity playbook.

1. From reactive patching to proactive prevention 

For decades, the industry lived in a “wait-and-see” mode waiting for a vulnerability to surface, waiting for a signature, and then rushing to patch the hole. But reactive methods just don’t hold up against modern “frontier” AI attacks that are constantly morphing. 

AI-driven defense changes the game by shifting to a prevention-first architecture. Rather than relying on historical signatures, modern platforms deploy localized, ML-driven analysis to evaluate the intent and behavior of an active process, stopping threats pre-execution. Cortex XDR leads with a strict prevention-first approach by using AI-driven local analysis and behavioral threat protection; the XDR agent stops sophisticated threats pre-impact and pre-execution. This proactive stance reduces the overall risk profile by blocking malicious chains of events in real time across network, process, file, and registry activity. 

2. Eliminating the “agentic blind spot” 

As we all rush to adopt generative AI and automated workflows, a new gap has appeared: the “agentic blind spot.” Adversaries are now targeting AI assistants and automated scripts to bypass defenses. Since these digital agents often have deep access to enterprise data, a compromise here lets attackers move completely under the radar. 

The new playbook requires securing this entire ecosystem. By combining the distinct capabilities of Cortex XDR and Koi Security, organizations can effectively close this gap. Koi Agentic Endpoint Security tracks everything from shell commands to prompts in real time, while Cortex XDR adds a layer of defense that identifies and neutralizes behavioral anomalies unique to these automated threats. 

3. Machine-speed detection and “attack storylines” 

When an attacker can move through your network in seconds, human-led teams can’t keep up. To make matters worse, most systems just flood analysts with low-quality, isolated alerts, leading to major burnout. 

AI-driven defense fixes the investigation process by automatically stitching separate data points into a single, high-fidelity “attack storyline.” Cortex XDR uses thousands of machine learning detectors across endpoint, network, and cloud sources to group related signals into one cohesive case. This reveals the full story of an attack, letting your analysts focus on fast remediation instead of digging through piles of data, reducing alert noise by up to 98%. 

4. Surgical and autonomous response 

The final piece of the puzzle is moving from manual remediation to autonomous action. AI-driven response lets your SOC handle threats in minutes, not hours. The platform can automatically revoke compromised tokens or isolate endpoints at machine speed. 

Cortex XDR delivers built-in enterprise-grade automation at no additional cost, providing over 120 out-of-the-box playbooks and 18 quick actions to handle up to 99% of incidents without manual intervention. Crucially, this level of automation requires an unbreakable foundation of agent resilience. To ensure the defense cannot be disabled by an adversary, Cortex XDR is certified in both the AVC EDR Detection and Anti-Tampering tests, successfully blocking all attempts to disable or modify the agent. 

Summary

The threat landscape is changing faster than ever, driven by AI-powered attackers who exploit even the smallest gaps. But you don’t have to stay on the defensive. By shifting to a proactive, AI-driven architecture like the one built into Cortex XDR, you can stop threats before they happen, secure your agentic workflows, and automate away the noise that leads to analyst burnout. 

The journey to a more resilient, AI-powered SOC doesn’t have to be daunting. With the right foundation in place, you’re not just keeping pace with the new threat landscape; you’re staying one step ahead. It’s time to move beyond the old manual playbook and embrace the future of security operations. 

To learn more about Palto Alto Networks, visit https://www.paloaltonetworks.com.

Linux systems using the XFS filesystem suffer from a race condition that could enable an unprivileged local user to gain full root access.

The flaw affects systems with Linux kernel 4.11 or later that have enabled the XFS feature reflink, which permits the creation of copies of a file without actually copying its data.

According to Qualys Threat Research Unit (TRU), there was a way around the file write protections reflink depends on. The bypass has existed in kernel versions since 2017 before a patch was made available last week.

“Using this vulnerability, a process running as an ordinary, unprivileged user can trigger the flaw and gain the ability to overwrite any readable file on an XFS volume at the block layer,” Saeed Abbasi, head of Qualys TRU, said in a blog post about the vulnerability, which he calls  RefluXFS. “Exploitation is highly reliable and leaves no kernel log output.”

Qualys estimated that the issue affects more than 16.4 million systems, primarily enterprise Linux deployments that use XFS with reflink enabled by default.

Race winner gets root in buggy file operation

The vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2026-64600, stemmed from the way XFS handles copy-on-write operations for reflinked files. Normally, when two files share the same storage block, as in the case of an original file and the reflinked clone, XFS allocates a new storage block before any data modification, so the original file remains unchanged.

However, a race condition occurs when two concurrent writes on the reflink file are initiated, confusing the filesystem into modifying the original file. “The change is made directly on disk, persists across reboots, and produces no kernel log output,” Qualys said in an advisory.

The issue is exploitable when Linux 4.11+, XFS with reflink enabled, and a shared filesystem layout are all present. It is assigned a high severity CVSS of 7.8 out of 10 as an exploit only needs read access to a target file before creating a reflink clone under a writable directory on the same XFS filesystem.

Linux distributions affected by RefluXFS

The vulnerability has been present in every mainline and stable Linux kernel since the release of version 4.11 in 2017, and requires no special capabilities or non-default configurations, Qualys said.

Affected Linux distributions include RHEL 8,9 and 10, CentOS Stream 8,9, and 10, Oracle Linux 8,9,10, Rocky and AlmaLinux 8,9, and 10, CloudLinux 8,9, and 10, Amazon Linux 2023 and Amazon Linux 2 AMIs from December 2022 onward, Fedora Server 31+, and Debian, Ubuntu and SUSE installations where XFS was manually selected.

Usual kernel hardening practices, including memory protection features like Kernel Address Space Layout Randomization (KASLR), Supervisor Mode Access Prevention (SMAP), and Supervisor Mode Execution Prevention (SMEP), are ineffective as they are all aimed at different attack surfaces. Even a kernel lockdown does nothing to stop the affected path, Qualys noted.

“SELinux doesn’t block the affected path in testing, and seccomp profiles are no barrier as long as they permit write and ioctl, which ordinary profiles do,” Abbasi explained. Immediate kernel patching and a full reboot are the only reliable mitigations, he added.

A fix was merged into the upstream Linux kernel source tree on July 16 as commit “2f4acd0,” after which Linux distributions began backporting the patch into their own supported kernel releases.

Organizations running affected XFS deployments should apply their Linux vendor’s latest kernel updates and reboot affected systems once fixed kernels become available.

Linux systems using the XFS filesystem suffer from a race condition that could enable an unprivileged local user to gain full root access.

The flaw affects systems with Linux kernel 4.11 or later that have enabled the XFS feature reflink, which permits the creation of copies of a file without actually copying its data.

According to Qualys Threat Research Unit (TRU), there was a way around the file write protections reflink depends on. The bypass has existed in kernel versions since 2017 before a patch was made available last week.

“Using this vulnerability, a process running as an ordinary, unprivileged user can trigger the flaw and gain the ability to overwrite any readable file on an XFS volume at the block layer,” Saeed Abbasi, head of Qualys TRU, said in a blog post about the vulnerability, which he calls  RefluXFS. “Exploitation is highly reliable and leaves no kernel log output.”

Qualys estimated that the issue affects more than 16.4 million systems, primarily enterprise Linux deployments that use XFS with reflink enabled by default.

Race winner gets root in buggy file operation

The vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2026-64600, stemmed from the way XFS handles copy-on-write operations for reflinked files. Normally, when two files share the same storage block, as in the case of an original file and the reflinked clone, XFS allocates a new storage block before any data modification, so the original file remains unchanged.

However, a race condition occurs when two concurrent writes on the reflink file are initiated, confusing the filesystem into modifying the original file. “The change is made directly on disk, persists across reboots, and produces no kernel log output,” Qualys said in an advisory.

The issue is exploitable when Linux 4.11+, XFS with reflink enabled, and a shared filesystem layout are all present. It is assigned a high severity CVSS of 7.8 out of 10 as an exploit only needs read access to a target file before creating a reflink clone under a writable directory on the same XFS filesystem.

Linux distributions affected by RefluXFS

The vulnerability has been present in every mainline and stable Linux kernel since the release of version 4.11 in 2017, and requires no special capabilities or non-default configurations, Qualys said.

Affected Linux distributions include RHEL 8,9 and 10, CentOS Stream 8,9, and 10, Oracle Linux 8,9,10, Rocky and AlmaLinux 8,9, and 10, CloudLinux 8,9, and 10, Amazon Linux 2023 and Amazon Linux 2 AMIs from December 2022 onward, Fedora Server 31+, and Debian, Ubuntu and SUSE installations where XFS was manually selected.

Usual kernel hardening practices, including memory protection features like Kernel Address Space Layout Randomization (KASLR), Supervisor Mode Access Prevention (SMAP), and Supervisor Mode Execution Prevention (SMEP), are ineffective as they are all aimed at different attack surfaces. Even a kernel lockdown does nothing to stop the affected path, Qualys noted.

“SELinux doesn’t block the affected path in testing, and seccomp profiles are no barrier as long as they permit write and ioctl, which ordinary profiles do,” Abbasi explained. Immediate kernel patching and a full reboot are the only reliable mitigations, he added.

A fix was merged into the upstream Linux kernel source tree on July 16 as commit “2f4acd0,” after which Linux distributions began backporting the patch into their own supported kernel releases.

Organizations running affected XFS deployments should apply their Linux vendor’s latest kernel updates and reboot affected systems once fixed kernels become available.

This article first appeared on Network World.

Google’s AI offerings span its internal and cloud offerings. Its data centers are processing seven times more AI tokens compared to last year. To keep up, Google is upgrading its data-center hardware and software technologies at a faster clip. It plans to raise $80 billion to build new data centers. (See related story: Google transforms its data center architecture for agent era)

Network World spoke with Mark Lohmeyer, vice president and general manager of AI and computing at Google, about how the company’s infrastructure is keeping pace with AI demand.

Network World: What is the primary shift in infrastructure needs?

Mark Lohmeyer: We’ve seen the rise of agents and agentic use cases. Years ago, it was the chat phase: Ask a question, get an answer. Now we’re in the agentic era, where you express your intent, agents spin off multiple sub-agents, working in parallel, preserving state. This is a radical shift in what infrastructure needs to do; make them fast, cost effective, secure, reliable. We’re delivering infrastructure optimized for the age of agents.

NW: What’s the goal of the infrastructure buildout, and what should customers expect regarding costs?

ML: Ultimately, it’s about enabling customers with leading-edge capabilities and models at scale cost-effectively. With agents, inference transactions increase by 50x, 100x versus non-agentic workloads. We’re driving the cost per transaction down exponentially. In our latest platforms, we reduce the cost by almost 2x for the same work. Customers serve twice the number of users at the same cost, directly driving profitability.

NW: How are you addressing energy efficiency?

ML: Energy is a critical resource, and Google has optimized for years. We design data centers and compute [to drive] high PUE (power usage effectiveness). We introduced liquid cooling over five years ago, and these latest systems are all liquid cooled. For agentic workloads, CPUs come to the forefront… orchestrating agents, calling tools, doing evaluation loops in reinforcement learning. Our latest Axion-based CPU platform called N4A has energy efficiency and is significantly better than the prior generation and x86 comparables.

NW: How do you think about token efficiency as you build-out systems?

ML: Performance and efficiency gains are powered by co-design of the model and infrastructure. Gemini is trained on TPUs, primarily served on TPUs with high frontier model capability, in a token and cost-efficient way. This stems from co-design across the full stack.

NW: How do you project what infrastructure will be needed years in advance?

ML: Hardware cycles deliver a new next generation roughly every year, but design cycles are two years or more in advance. We work with DeepMind doing core research, to application teams taking models into production, to billions of users, to our team building infrastructure. We work upstream with DeepMind and application teams to understand what’s coming. Agents weren’t being broadly spoken of externally, but internally we had those insights around what they would need. That shows up in hardware design. We hit the timing right — these platforms are built for agents.

NW: What’s the eighth generation TPU platform?

ML: We deliver new platforms every year, and ones launched years ago are close to 100% utilized because demand for AI-optimized compute is high. The eighth-generation TPU platform is the first delivering two complete systems, from the chip all the way up to the network and storage and software, that are optimized.

TPU-8t is optimized for training, and TPU-8i is optimized for inference. For TPU-8i, we increased SRAM on the chip to 384MB — three times the prior generation — and increased the HBM by 50%.

NW: How are you approaching GPU and TPU compatibility?

ML: People in a single cluster do not commingle GPUs and TPUs. We offer both options based on specific workload needs. We’ve been investing on the TPU side in using software frameworks customers are comfortable with on GPUs and enabling those on TPUs. For example, PyTorch and vLLM. Customers could have a pool of GPUs and TPUs, running vLLM on top of that. Start with a workload on TPUs, but if the TPU pool is fully utilized, spill to GPUs or vice versa. This works because it’s all leveraging the same compatible software layer on top.

NW: How has the orchestration platform changed for agents?

ML: Kubernetes is becoming the orchestration platform of choice for AI. Google is transforming GKE [Google Kubernetes Engine] into an agent-native orchestration solution. When expressing intent to an agent and it spins up multiple sub-agents, compute needs to spin up rapidly — TPUs or GPUs — without long delays, then run and spin back down. We’re optimizing at every layer of the GKE stack: significantly improving node startup time and how rapidly we start and stop containers. Lovable demonstrates this with GKE, spinning up hundreds of sandboxes for live coding sessions on their platform in parallel, paying for infrastructure when needed.

NW: What is the role of the network and storage infrastructure?

ML: The network is critical for AI. This requires creating large-scale clusters of GPUs or TPUs and enabling them to talk to each other in a high-performance way. We created the Virgo network — a collapsed network architecture, non-blocking within a data center, where multiple pods or NVLink72 domains connect together.

In TPU8T, we can connect over a million TPUs together leveraging Virgo, creating large-scale, high-performance, reliable clusters that shrink innovation cycles. Storage is equally critical. In large-scale clusters, something is always failing. The ability to take snapshots and go back to a checkpoint is important.

We’ve introduced Managed Lustre 10T, with 10 terabytes per second of bandwidth, 18 petabytes of storage in single clusters. This is 10 times faster than last year and 20 times faster than competition. We have Rapid Bucket, low-latency storage backed by Google storage systems. Both are impactful in large-scale training environments.

NW: How does KV cache strategy differ between training and inference?

ML: For TPU-8i, we increased SRAM on the chip to 384 megabytes — three times the prior generation — and increased the HBM by 50%. Storing KV cache directly in chip memory allows responding to inference requests much more rapidly and cost-effectively than going to an external system. For inference workloads, storing as much KV cache as possible on-chip is critical.

We’re introducing a dedicated KV cache storage subsystem that works across GPUs and TPUs. As KV caches get larger, being able to fall back to this dedicated subsystem becomes critical. Loading model weights rapidly is important in dynamic inference environments where accelerators switch between models hour by hour.

Over the past few years, I have learned that basic prompts produce inconsistent, hallucination-prone results that no executive would trust in production. What turned the tide was my move to advanced prompting techniques. These weren’t theoretical experiments; they became a practical foundation for reliable, measurable outcomes. I want to share the techniques that consistently delivered the biggest gains in my projects, complete with real before-and-after examples, copy-paste templates, lessons from failures and guidance on when to evolve beyond prompting to agentic systems.

Why advanced prompting still matters in enterprise settings

Sophisticated prompting remains essential for control, reliability and compliance. If you “ask nicely” and hope for the best, you need deterministic behavior, auditable reasoning and minimal risk of hallucination. Here’s what worked for me.

1. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and its variants: Unlocking step-by-step reasoning

The problem: Models would jump to conclusions on complex analysis tasks, especially involving data interpretation or multi-step logic.

What I did: I started explicitly instructing the model to “think step by step” and show its reasoning.

Before (basic prompt): “Analyze last quarter’s sales data and recommend three actions.”

After (CoT prompt):

“You’re a senior business analyst. Analyze the following sales data step by step: [data]. First, identify the key trends. Second, calculate the rates and anomalies. Third, link findings to business context. Finally, recommend the three prioritized actions with expected impact. Explain your reasoning at each step.”  

Results: Accuracy and depth improved dramatically.

Variants that worked well: Self-consistency. I ran the same CoT prompt multiple times and took the majority consensus. This reduced variability significantly.

Template you can use:

You are [expert role]. Solve this problem by thinking step by step.

[Task or question]

For each step:

1. State your observation or calculation.

2. Explain the implication.

3. Proceed only when confident.

Final answer in this format: [structured output]

2. Tree-of-Thoughts (ToT): Exploring multiple reasoning paths

For truly complex decisions such as resource allocation or risk assessment, linear CoT isn’t enough. Tree-of-Thoughts lets the model generate and evaluate multiple branches.

Example: I was helping a client evaluate three potential vendor platforms for an AI deployment. A standard prompt gave a superficial comparison. With ToT

Prompt Snippet:

Explore three different reasoning paths for selecting the best vendor platform:

Path 1: Focus on cost and scalability.

Path 2: Focus on security, compliance and integration.

Path 3: Focus on innovation and long-term roadmap.

For each path, evaluate pros/cons against our requirements [list].

Then, compare the paths and recommend the strongest overall option with justification.

Outcome: The model surfaced nuanced trade-offs (e.g., one vendor had superior security, but higher integration cost).

When to use: Strategic planning, troubleshooting or scenarios with high uncertainty and multiple viable approaches.

3. ReAct (Reason+ Act) and prompt chaining: Moving toward agentic behavior

One of the biggest leaps I have noticed comes from combining reasoning with tool use and chaining prompts.

ReAct example: (used in data analytics workflow)

You are an AI analyst with access to tools. For the query below:

1. Reason about what information you need.

2. Choose the appropriate tool or action.

3. Observe the result.

4. Repeat until you can answer confidently.

Query: [user request]

In practice, I chained this with retrieval tools. One automated quarterly compliance reporting; the system reasoned about required data, pulled relevant records, validated them, and generated the reports.

4. Meta-prompting and self-reflection: Letting the model improve itself

Use the model to refine its own prompt. This is a huge time-saver.

You are an expert prompt engineer. Improve the following prompt for clarity, structure and effectiveness with [target model]. Make it more precise while preserving intent.

Original prompt: [paste]

Provide the improved version and explain your changes.

Self-reflection loops (asking the model to critique its own output and revise) are a game-changer for content generation and code-review tasks.

5. Multimodal and structured output techniques

With vision-enabled models, I started combining text with images (e.g., uploading architecture diagrams or dashboards).

Tip from experience: Be extremely specific in describing what the models should focus on.

Best practices I learned the hard way

• Start simple, then layer complexity: Over-engineered prompts from Day One usually backfire.
• Model specific tuning: Some models respond better to XML delimiters; others to explicit reasoning.
• Evaluation and versioning: Treat prompts like code if you track versions and run automated evals.
• Security guardrails: Always include instructions against prompt injections and respect data boundaries.
• When to stop prompting: For repetitive, high-stakes workflows, move to full agents or an orchestration framework.

Final takeaways for technical leaders

Advanced prompt engineering has now become a core competency for anyone responsible for enterprise AI outcomes. Start by picking one technique and apply it rigorously to a real business problem. Document before/ after and you will notice why it’s worth mastering.

The field continues evolving towards more automated and agentic systems, but the ability to precisely direct AI reasoning remains foundational.

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

When it comes to building an effective AI stack, context is king and power isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be.

“Smaller, smarter, safer — this is a bet our company has taken in how we deploy AI internally,” said Ricky Thakrar, head of sales and account management at Zoho, provider of a suite of popular cloud-based software solutions for sales, marketing, and finance.

“I’m on the business side, and so decisions made by our CIO and IT folks affect me directly, and my teams’ workflows and processes,” he added.

Speaking to a room of tech leaders at the CIO 100 Leadership Live New York event last week, Thakrar explained that every company wants the speed of AI-generated work wedded to the quality of human work, even though these two are diametrically opposed. No amount of model upgrades or spend will close that gap, so the only way forward is to architect your way out. Thakrar encapsulated this idea in a simple formula:

• Smaller: Stop deploying maximum firepower on every task. Many tasks don’t need it.
• Smarter: The system around the model decides more than the model does.
• Safer: Verify at the point a mistake gets locked in, not just downstream of it.

He noted that organizations that win with AI won’t be those deploying the biggest, most powerful models or the most sophisticated architecture, but the ones that figure out that the model is the easy part and the right architecture is harder. That means understanding the hardest element, and the biggest differentiator, is building a human system that learns and compounds alongside agentic systems.

To get it right, organizations need to prioritize the context layer. The size of frontier models like the GPT series, Claude, and Gemini mostly exist to compensate for missing context, Thakrar explained. Without enough context, models need to be able to reason harder and infer more about what a user actually means because it doesn’t know the user’s account, process, or history. A rich context layer makes it possible for enterprises to run workloads on much smaller, lower-power models.

“The intelligence moves from the model into the architecture around it,” he said.

A steep learning curve

One of Zoho’s earliest AI agents was a churn management agent to help the account management team detect churn in customer subscriptions. So when a subscription became inactive, the agent would collect context from notes, meeting recordings, and Zoho’s data enrichment tool, then create a summary of reasons the account might have churned, and schedule a call.

“What happened was I got this churn agent a couple months later, already embedded in our CRM, and within a week my team no longer trusted that agent,” Thakrar said. “The reason is we forgot to collect one very key point.”

In Zoho’s CRM, when a customer buys a bundle of products, that bundle is represented as a single line item. That means the status of any products the customer may have previously purchased individually changes to inactive as they’re moved to the bundle. That’s not churn, but it was interpreted it that way. Zoho fixed it in the second version of the agent.

Then a new problem arose. Many potential customers first purchase Zoho products as pilots or sandboxes. As those customers move from pilot to live instance, they close down the pilot versions. And again, the CRM would record that as subscriptions going inactive.

“The trust deteriorates again because everyone got excited for version 2,” Thakrar said.

Sometimes, a certain product might not be the best fit for a customer and Thakrar’s team will suggest the customer move to another product. That’s deliberate churn, not a churn risk.

“You may have a similar story like this where the agent sounds so good, it’s going to do something quick and add value, but it’s missing context from the account managers, and there are so many more pieces we’re still building out,” Thakrar said. “It’s been almost a year and the problem I have is my team still doesn’t trust it. They’ll see [a message from the agent] and go out and do all the research anyway to make sure it gave the correct answer.”

The team is more on top of potential churn, though, but the promised productivity gains have yet to materialize because the agent has to earn back lost trust due to a lack of context.

“My goal for this year is having an AI-assisted customer journey from sales to account management where the handoff is clean, the context flows, and every piece of information we gather about a customer is weighed, identified, and coached so the sales team can close more deals,” he said.

Zoho’s early experience with agents has led to the idea that constrained, context-rich, deterministic architectures consistently outperform expensive models bolted onto fragmented systems. It all comes down to three pillars: routing, harness, and specialization.

Routing

Routing is about sending workloads to the proper model for the job, which entails providing enough context to a given task that a small, cheap model can handle it without the need for spare reasoning capacity to fill gaps.

Frontier models are expensive and companies can burn through a year’s budget worth of tokens in months. But most tasks can be handled by much smaller, more constrained models at a fraction of the cost.

“You don’t always have to pay the frontier guys for every task,” he said. “We’ve observed with some clients that we could save them 95% with a 3 billion parameter model.”

Harness

An AI agent harness is the software infrastructure scaffolding around an LLM that differentiates an agent from a chatbot. It’s what enables an agent to act on tasks rather than simply respond to prompts. A model reasons through a problem and decides what to do about it. The harness connects the model to the tools, systems, memory, guardrails, and execution environments required to perform the actions determined by the model. The term is frequently used more or less interchangeably with orchestration layer.

“It’s the process around the model, which matters way more than the model itself,” Thakrar said.

In benchmark tests, a superior harness on a less powerful model produces better results than an inferior harness on a much bigger model.

For the best results, Thakrar said, it’s essential to understand the deterministic and non-deterministic elements of a given workload, and build that into the architecture. Machines can read, organize, and validate, and they excel at deterministic tasks. Humans, on the other hand, are exceptional at non-deterministic tasks like judging, synthesizing, and deciding.

Those non-deterministic tasks in a process are the ideal point for AI agents to incorporate a human in the loop, what Thakrar calls human harness. He pointed to a stakeholder mapping agent Zoho built for sales as an example, which takes the context of an initial meeting and third-party enriched data like a LinkedIn profile, weighs probabilities, and makes an educated guess about the stakeholder map.

“The initial goal was just to eliminate that task completely from the human workflow,” he said. “The stakeholder map is done, it’s in the folder, and you can look at it.”

But the agent would struggle to capture nuance. The meanings of titles in organizations always vary, and the politics and dynamics of any given meeting can be difficult for an AI agent to discern. Rather than keep feeding the agent data to try to make it intelligent enough to make those determinations, it was simpler and more efficient for the agent to create a proposed stakeholder map and hand it over to a human who could make changes and explain why those changes were necessary.

Ultimately, Thakrar said the agent still saved human team members time because the stakeholder map was usually pretty close, and the corrections also helped the model grow smarter by adding richer context.

Specialization

Specialization is transitioning a process from testing on a frontier model to production on a much narrower, smaller model. Once you’ve proven that an agent can do a job well, you want to stop paying master-craftsman rates to keep doing that one job well.

Specialization is all about capturing your subject matter experts’ best judgement and pattern recognition to build an open-weight, open source, trained, and fine-tuned model that can be deployed in your own data center.

“The true enterprise bet is to keep that orchestration layer, which is your IP and knowledge, in house,” Thakrar said. “You don’t want to host that on someone else’s model. The goal of everyone in enterprise should be to run, train, and host their own models.”

Every CIO I speak with today is wrestling with some version of the same question: How do we move faster with AI and deliver on our commitments?

It’s an understandable concern. Boards and CEOs are asking about AI. Business leaders are experimenting with use cases. Employees are discovering tools daily, while technology vendors promise unprecedented gains in productivity, innovation, and competitive advantage.

After hundreds of conversations with technology executives over the past year, I’ve become convinced that speed isn’t the real issue. The organizations pulling away from the pack aren’t necessarily adopting AI faster than everyone else. They’re executing more effectively — a subtle distinction that represents one of the defining leadership challenges of the AI era.

Technology has never been the hardest part of transformation. People, priorities, culture, and operating models are the biggest challenges. The ability to translate bold boardroom aspirations into thousands of thoughtful decisions made every day by architects, engineers, product managers, analysts, and business leaders is where competitive advantage is created. AI may be accelerating the pace of change, but it hasn’t changed that fundamental truth.

I’ve met plenty of executives who are exceptional in the boardroom. They know how to frame a vision, influence a board, and build confidence among investors and business leaders. I’ve also met remarkable technologists who instinctively understand the architectural decisions, engineering tradeoffs, and implementation details that determine how great ideas become reality. Modern CIOs, however, must move comfortably between both worlds. Afshean Talasaz is one who stands out among this rare breed.

Long before becoming CIO of Colonial Pipeline, Talasaz built his career from the ground up as a business professional, data scientist, and technologist. He has designed enterprise platforms, built AI capabilities, led technology organizations, and partnered closely with executive leadership teams on business transformation. Today, as an executive in residence with our Practitioners for Practitioners (P4P) community, he helps CIOs and business leaders navigate one of the most significant technology shifts of our generation.

While Talasaz brings deep knowledge of data and AI to the table, his greatest strength is his ability to create strategy and connect it with execution. He can spend the morning discussing enterprise reinvention with the board and the afternoon debating architectural principles with the teams responsible for bringing that vision to life.

That versatility gives Talasaz a unique lens on how CIOs can deliver value with AI.

Software companies have a term for engineers who understand every layer of the technology stack: full-stack developers. Listen to Talasaz and it becomes evident that the AI era requires something similar from technology leaders: a full-stack CIO.

The full-stack CIO: Leading with clarity

A full-stack CIO understands how every layer of the enterprise influences the next. They recognize that every strategic priority becomes a portfolio investment, every investment shapes an operating model, every operating model influences architecture, every architecture choice informs product decisions, every product decision shapes engineering priorities.

The best CIOs understand both ends of that journey. The extraordinary ones understand everything in between.

And those who execute best lead with clarity, Talasaz says.

“Everyone, from executives to middle managers to the people writing code, should be able to explain what we’re trying to achieve,” he emphasizes. “Clarity isn’t that we’ve handed out the PowerPoint. It’s that people genuinely understand where we’re going and can articulate it in their own language.”

One of the unintended consequences of the AI boom is that organizations are beginning to confuse activity with alignment. They have AI councils, AI governance committees, AI innovation labs, AI centers of excellence, AI pilots, and AI roadmaps. Yet if you stop ten people in the hallway and ask a deceptively simple question, What business problem are we actually trying to solve? you’ll often hear ten different answers.

As a result, architects optimize for one objective while product teams optimize for another. Business units pursue opportunities that seem perfectly reasonable from their perspective. Engineers make thoughtful technical decisions based on the information available to them. Individually, none of those decisions are necessarily wrong. Collectively, however, they create organizational drift. AI doesn’t create that problem. It simply accelerates the consequences.

And while AI can be a force multiplier for the positive when every decision is guided by a shared understanding of where the organization is headed, it can also be a force multiplier for the negative, resulting in an organization simply moving faster in different directions.

“When we have the fundamentals right, the tech infrastructure, the operating models, the nuances of how our business actually runs, we get the impacts of AI in a positive way,” Talasaz says. “When we don’t have those in place, AI can amplify the gaps or mute the benefits.”

At a time when so much of the conversation surrounding AI is focused on algorithms, agents, and automation, it’s an important reminder that organizations don’t execute strategy; people do.

Reducing organizational friction

Most executives are familiar with the concept of VUCA that characterizes today’s business environment. But Talasaz stresses the importance of turning this concern inward: “If the world outside our organizations is becoming more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, what are we, as leaders, doing to the inside of our organizations?”

Leaders spend enormous amounts of time helping their organizations respond to external disruption but comparatively little time asking whether they are inadvertently re-creating those same conditions internally in response to those external needs. Are we reducing uncertainty or introducing more of it? Are we simplifying work or adding unnecessary complexity? Are we helping people focus on what matters most, or asking them to navigate competing priorities and shifting expectations?

Talasaz refers to this phenomenon as double VUCA — something I’ve witnessed repeatedly while working with CIOs over the past decade. Organizations often assume they’re struggling because of technology limitations when the real constraint is organizational friction. Teams wait for decisions. Priorities shift faster than roadmaps. Governance grows heavier. New committees are formed to solve problems created by existing committees. Everyone is working harder, yet the organization somehow feels slower.

AI amplifies both outcomes. Organizations with clarity become dramatically more effective because AI accelerates good decisions. Organizations without clarity simply accelerate confusion.

Operating model as strategy enabler

AI governance is one way to achieve greater clarity, but as Talasaz says, governance shouldn’t primarily exist inside policy manuals that few people read.

Instead, AI governance should be embedded in the daily rhythms of the organization, shaping how teams collaborate, how decisions are made, how products move from ideas into production, and how innovation happens safely without requiring constant escalation. In other words, it’s all about your operating model.

“If you had to pick one thing that isn’t technology, your operating model is the most important element for executing data and AI at scale,” he says.

The best operating models create enough clarity that capable people can make thousands of decisions independently and confidently, without having to wait for permission. By embedding good governance into the way it works, the organization becomes faster.

This advice echoes something I’ve heard repeatedly from some of the world’s most respected CIOs: High-performing organizations aren’t built on tighter control; they’re built on greater trust, supported by clear principles, shared expectations, and operating models that enable responsible decision-making at every level of the enterprise.

Talasaz points out that technology leaders tend to speak in terms of transformation. He suggests CIOs consider a different word: reinvention.

As he explains, transformation implies replacing what exists today with something new. Reinvention starts with a more clear-eyed and practical premise: Some things absolutely must change; others represent years, sometimes decades, of accumulated expertise, customer trust, operational discipline, and competitive advantage.

Reinvention is about building on those strengths while also creating new ways to deliver value. The leaders making the greatest progress in their AI journeys seem to recognize that it’s less about abandoning the past than thoughtfully preparing the organization for the future.

Closing the gap between strategy and execution

Full-stack CIOs must be able to map out the various layers of execution and planning that need to be done at every level of the organization to be successful. To help with this, Talasaz has developed a data and AI framework that draws on his own experiences “from the keyboard to the boardroom.”

As Talasaz sees it, too many organizations have been doing good work in isolation. “They’re doing a lot of the right things,” he says. “They’re just not connected.”

Boards may be discussing growth while business leaders redesign customer experiences. Product teams may be prioritizing new capabilities while architects modernize platforms. Data teams may be improving quality while engineers focus on delivery. Every group makes meaningful progress within its own domain, yet somewhere between strategy and execution, the connective tissue begins to disappear. Talasaz’s framework brings those connecting points to the forefront.

Crucially, the framework doesn’t begin with technology or AI or even with data. It begins with the experiences the organization hopes to create for its customers, employees, or partners. Many AI initiatives start with the question, “What can this technology do?” And indeed, we need to be inspired by the possibilities and challenged to think differently by what the technology can do. But, Talasaz emphasizes, we also need to ask what experiences we need to deliver for our business and how the technology can make that a reality.

The framework challenges CIOs to answer that question first. Only after the experiences are clearly defined does the conversation move to the capabilities required to deliver it, the business activities that support those capabilities, the AI and data products that enable them, and finally the data foundation that makes everything possible.

This shift in perspective ensures that, rather than allowing technology investments to search for business value, the business experience defines the technology required to deliver it. For CIOs, that’s more than a planning exercise. It’s a fundamentally different way of leading.

Over the coming months, the P4P community will be convening a series of small CxO roundtables to explore these issues and work more deeply with Afshean Talasaz’s 6×6 Data and AI Framework. CIOs and other enterprise leaders interested in participating are welcome to reach out to me directly.

Leadership wants to scale AI. Budgets are tripling. Adoption is up.

Then the CFO asks the question every board now asks: which of these initiatives is actually profitable?

Most organizations cannot answer that question, not because they lack visibility into cost, but because the cost data they have was never designed to produce that answer.

Applying lessons learned from managing cloud spend won’t be a fix for the AI and ROI quandary. True, cloud taught a generation of CFOs that billing without business context is noise. So to get cloud ROI, they stitched two data sources together: cost data plus business data. AWS reveals which account, which region, which tag, which resource. Merge in customer and product mappings on top and the ROI of the cloud spend comes into focus.

But AI is harder. It requires three data sources: cost, business, and telemetry—the automatic collection of data from disparate sources that helps to clarify the whole picture of what happened and why. An executive or engineering lead can have AI invoices and customer revenue. But they have no way to connect them to business value. The token count on the OpenAI invoice does not specify which customer triggered which call, which feature it served, or whether the prompt produced a business outcome. That data does not exist in the provider’s billing.

AI providers won’t fix this problem

The situation is not likely to change anytime soon because AI providers are not in the business of attributing an enterprise’s costs to that enterprise’s customers. Instead, AI providers are in the business of selling tokens. The granularity they expose is the granularity their billing systems require, not the granularity a CFO requires.

Not convinced? Compare what AWS gives you to what an AI provider gives you.

AWS billing exposes resource IDs, account hierarchies, region, SKU, tag metadata, usage by the minute. Every dollar can be attributed to a workload, a team, a customer segment if it was tagged correctly. The data is rich enough that mature FinOps teams built unit economics on top of it years ago.

An AI provider invoice gives you tokens consumed by model, with optional grouping by API key. That is the resolution. No request-level attribution. No customer ID. No feature mapping. No prompt outcome. No retry identification. Multi-step agent workflows collapse into a token count. Imagine a large bank receives a multi-million dollar AI invoice each month. But it has no visibility into what parts of the business were responsible for what parts of the cost so cannot allocate them.

If an enterprise wants to know what AI cost drove which customer or feature, it has to capture that data itself, inside an application, before the call leaves it. 

Three required sources

Building AI ROI measurement requires three data sources, stitched together in a single model.

1. Cost data, normalized across providers. Every AI provider delivers cost differently. OpenAI invoices in one taxonomy, Anthropic in another, fine-tuning vendors and inference platforms each in their own. Cloud GPU costs sit in AWS or Azure billing. Vector database costs land in Pinecone or Snowflake invoices. None interoperate by default. Normalization is necessary but not sufficient. It will put all your AI costs in one schema. It does not tell you what they produced.
2. Application-layer telemetry. This is the source most organizations are missing, and the one that makes AI ROI structurally different from cloud ROI. It requires instrumenting AI calls inside your application across six categories: request-level tracing tied to a customer or session ID; feature attribution tied to the product surface that triggered the call; agent-step capture for multi-step workflows; retry and fallback identification so recovery costs don’t get attributed to primary calls; model selection logging that records which model was chosen and why; and outcome capture that ties each call to whether it produced business value. None of this data exists in the provider’s billing. All of it has to be captured at the moment the call is made and stored in a system that can be stitched to the cost data.
3. Business data. Revenue, customer segments, product hierarchies, and feature usage. The same business data already feeding your CRM and analytics stack, mapped to the customers and features the telemetry layer attributes calls to.

Stitched together, the three sources produce the unit economics every AI investment decision now requires: cost per customer interaction, margin per feature, profitability per agent workflow, ROI per model choice. None of these can be calculated from billing data alone. None can be calculated from telemetry alone. They require all three sources, modeled together in a way that maps cost to outcome.

Why agentic AI makes this urgent

Single-call inference is the easy case. One request, one cost, one customer, one outcome.

Agentic workflows are different. An agent decomposes a task into multiple steps. Each step calls a model. Some steps fall back to a different model when the first fails. Some steps retry on a poor result. Some steps invoke external tools that themselves cost money. A single user request can produce dozens of inference calls across multiple providers, with the cost compounding in ways the provider invoice cannot disaggregate.

If telemetry does not capture agent-step granularity, no one will know which steps are profitable. Aggregate costs will show up three weeks later in the invoice. By then, the workflow has been running at scale, customers are onboarded, and unprofitable paths have been retried thousands of times.

When agents make the calls, the volume of cost-generating events without business context attached grows by an order of magnitude. The window for instrumenting this before it becomes unmanageable is closing.

What changes when the three sources come together

Once the three sources are stitched together, the AI investment conversation changes.

Five different ways to build the same AI capability stop looking equivalent. They converge on adoption metrics and diverge by 10x on cost. The team picks the approach that delivers a similar business outcome at one-fifth the cost, because the team can finally see the difference. Product teams design features with margin awareness from the architecture phase, not from the post-launch budget review. Engineering teams choose model architectures with cost-per-outcome data alongside latency and quality. Leadership evaluates AI initiatives the way they evaluate any other capital allocation: on unit economics, not on the engagement chart. Aggregated invoices track the cost per customer interaction. Engagement metrics reveal margin per feature. Gut-instinct model selection is checked against real cost-per-outcome model selection results. 

Within seconds, everyone can see which AI features are profitable, which should scale, and which should be killed. This is the insight everyone is looking for and companies that achieve it will optimize the benefits of AI.

The build trap

AI costs are compounding now. The board is not waiting 18 months for an internal project to reach production.

The temptation to build it anyway has never been sharper. AI coding tools have changed what a small engineering team can ship in a quarter. The instrumentation layer looks tractable. The cost normalization looks like a weekend project. The semantic model feels like something a senior engineer could draft over a sprint.

It is a trap. Three reasons.

Volume is the first. A production AI footprint generates millions of telemetry events per hour, and that volume scales with agentic adoption. Real-time ingestion, correlation, and attribution at that scale is not the same problem as vibe coding a prototype in an afternoon. It is a permanent operational system that has to be right every minute of every day.

The vendor landscape is the second. Cost data arrives in delayed billing windows from providers with non-interoperable schemas. Schemas change without notice. New AI providers enter the landscape monthly, each with its own taxonomy and metering. The system is not built once. It is maintained against a moving target that moves faster than most internal release cycles.

The third is what the first two add up to: this is business-critical infrastructure. The CFO and the board are going to make capital allocation decisions on the data this system produces. When schema drift goes unnoticed for two weeks, when an agent telemetry stream stops correlating to a vendor that quietly changed its billing API, the cost of being wrong is not a sprint of cleanup. It is a quarter of misallocated capital.

The build-vs.-buy question for engineering leaders has changed. It’s not “can we build this?” The honest answer is yes. The real question is whether the marginal hour of your strongest engineers is best spent stitching cost data to telemetry to business outcomes, or building the AI products that produce the revenue the cost data is measuring.

The capability is reproducible in weeks. The choice is whether to spend the next 18 months building it, or the next 18 months acting on it.

—

New Tech Forum provides a venue for technology leaders—including vendors and other outside contributors—to explore and discuss emerging enterprise technology in unprecedented depth and breadth. The selection is subjective, based on our pick of the technologies we believe to be important and of greatest interest to InfoWorld readers. InfoWorld does not accept marketing collateral for publication and reserves the right to edit all contributed content. Send all inquiries to doug_dineley@foundryco.com.

Running containers on Windows has never been as easy as it should be. While there are versions of Docker Desktop and Podman that work with both the Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) and Hyper-V, I’ve found both overly complex and unstable. Where they have worked, it’s turned out that Hyper-V has been the best option, using a Linux virtual machine to host my containers. That all adds up to overhead, layers of virtual infrastructure that get in the way of work and that need to be rebuilt every time I restart my PC.

Part of the problem is WSL. It’s a good tool, but WSL2’s file-system integration is slow, and you’re left having to work with code using Visual Studio Code’s remote integration, which means putting a VS Code Server in every container you’re building and testing. If you’re working with Kubernetes, that’s even more complexity that needs to be managed, dragging you away from code.

I ended up running most of my container testing and development from a separate machine, a Linux server running containerd. But though it worked (and had all the resources of workstation-class device), it wasn’t portable, and for some reason I’ve yet to uncover, Ubuntu’s remote desktop access doesn’t work for me.

So, it was good to see Microsoft make several announcements around WSL at Build 2026 as part of a push to make Windows a developer platform again. The first, an improved WSL3, is still some way away, but the second, WSL-native container support, shipped at the end of June. It is already seeing community-driven development of Docker Desktop-like tooling to help monitor and manage your containers.

Delivering a WSL-based container platform fits in with the other developer-focused Windows announcements at Build. Making Windows behave more like Linux is Microsoft responding to developer needs, given that more than 50% of servers on Azure run a Linux distribution. Linux is the basis of cloud-native infrastructure, so developers need to be able to build on it wherever they are.

Getting started with WSL container

WSL container provides a new CLI that works in parallel to the familiar WSL, with commands to support the entire container life cycle, from creation to shut down. All you need to do to get started is upgrade your WSL installation to the current pre-release build (at the time of writing this was 2.9.3). Simply open an administrator PowerShell terminal and enter wsl --update --pre-release.

This downloads and installs the latest WSL release. Once you’ve closed and re-opened your terminal (to ensure that you’ve updated its context) you can check that WSLC has installed by entering wslc, which should list the available commands. The new CLI is aliased to WSL container, if you prefer to keep your container work separate from WSL (and avoid typos that might accidentally affect your WSL installations).

Under the hood Microsoft is using WSL container to trial new integration points for Linux in Windows. One key change is the use of a new file system that significantly speeds up access to Windows from inside a container. Another improvement gives WSL container a new networking mode that relays networking connections directly through the Windows network stack, ensuring it has access to the same resources and security as Windows.

Calling Linux containers from Windows applications

Things get more interesting when you start to use the WSL container API from inside your Windows code. Here you can include calls to Linux containers inside your desktop applications, taking advantage of existing services, building and deploying containers from inside your CI/CD pipeline. Using the new file system and networking stack helps reduce the friction that comes with crossing the boundaries between the two platforms.

The WSL container API is available as a NuGet package, with support for C, C#, and C++. It allows your code to start and stop containers, and interact directly with them, sending command-line calls and reading back responses. Where things get interesting is being able to launch a containerized service from your code, exposing its REST or gRPC APIs on a local network port. Microsoft has provided sample code to show you what’s possible at this early stage.

Microsoft is doing something revolutionary here. It’s taking the cloud-native, service-driven model and bringing it into Windows and using it to bridge decades of divergent development. You no longer have to rewrite a service that works on Linux to run in Windows; all you need to do is containerize the service and launch it from the WSL container API. When you’re done, the API will tidy up after you, shutting down the container and reclaiming the memory it used.

It’s important to remember that this is only the first public preview of a rapidly developing platform. There are many opportunities here to, say, build on the syscall translation layer developed for WSL1 to produce a native Windows-to-Linux application integration stack that removes the overhead of using web-based service calls. It will be interesting to see what develops, but this first release is very interesting indeed.

Manage Linux containers from Windows

If you want a Docker Desktop-like experience for building and testing containers on Windows developer hardware, you may not have long to wait. WSL container’s underlying API is already being used to build tools that manage and monitor containers for you. One such tool is the WSL Container Desktop, under development on GitHub. While there aren’t any release builds yet, it’s easy enough to compile and get running by cloning the source repository and building using the .NET CLI. You do need to have the Windows App SDK installed, and some features require access to the Azure CLI.

WSL Container Desktop is built in C#, with a WinUI front end. It’s currently only verified for use on x64, though I was able to compile and run it on an Arm64 PC and use it to test and run containers. Once running, it gives you a well-designed front end for your WSL-hosted containers, showing what’s running and what resources they are using. You can link WSL Container Desktop to container registries, like Docker’s and Azure’s, so you can quickly pull base containers and then use the WSL container environment to add your own code and customizations.

Your main interaction point is the WSL Container Desktop dashboard, which shows what containers are running and their current resource usage. Elements are displayed in cards, taking a cue from Windows’ own user interface and especially from its Settings app. From the dashboard, you can drill down into the available containers, with quick start, stop, and reload options, as well as an extended memory that includes the ability to open a web browser to the appropriate port. I tested this with a container that included an entire KDE webtop, giving me a Linux distro running in a container in my browser.

Other options include a details view that displays current logs and provides tools for inspecting the state of a container. This is the type of tool that comes in useful when debugging and testing container applications, as it can provide insights that the WSL container CLI doesn’t offer. Another option helps you clean up after you’ve downloaded an image and don’t need it anymore, with analytics that show the largest images and images you haven’t used for some time. On top of its tooling for working with WSL containers, WSL Container Desktop provides a basic settings tool that helps you configure its look and feel, as well as how it integrates with Windows.

Run Kubernetes inside Windows for cloud-native development

One of the more useful features of WSL Container Desktop is the ability to quickly stand up a K3s Kubernetes instance in WSL that can be used to host WSL containers, providing a local environment to build and test cloud-native applications wherever you might be. The K3s tooling offers a similar experience to the Kubernetes project’s own Headlamp UI, making it easy to go between your development environment and a production Kubernetes cluster.

It’s fair to describe WSL container as one of those Windows features you didn’t think you needed, but now it’s here you can’t live without it. WSL container simplifies building a container development tool chain in Windows, and at the same time allows you to think about a new generation of hybrid applications that take advantage of decades of development in both Windows and Linux.

The result is something that was unimaginable a few years ago: dropping a Linux container into the middle of a Windows application and treating it as another local service. As the WSL container platform evolves, you should expect to see more ways of bringing Linux and Windows together, using containers to deliver a hybrid platform that gives us the best of both worlds at long last.

Liebe Microsoft-Entscheider,

Ich möchte keine Hassliebe zu Visual Studio Code (VS Code) entwickeln. Aber ihr macht es mir wirklich schwer. Früher war VS Code einfach nur ein Editor, den man mit Hilfe von Add-Ons genau so konfiguriert hat, wie man es brauchte oder wollte. Deshalb habe ich das Tool bisher auch wirklich gerne für diverse Dev-Aufgaben in unterschiedlichen Programmiersprachen genutzt. Zum Beispiel, um:

• mit Extensions einen Python-Workflow aufzusetzen, der Datenbankfunktionen erschließt,
• eine Umgebung für das digitale Publishing von Büchern zu erstellen, oder
• ein Screenwriting-Projekt einzurichten.

Natürlich geht all das auch noch heute. Aber: Buchstäblich jede neue Funktion in Visual Studio Code dreht sich heute nur noch um ein Thema: KI. Das hat inzwischen Ausmaße angenommen, angesichts derer ich mir die Frage stelle, ob in Eurem Unternehmen überhaupt noch jemand am eigentlichen Editor arbeitet.

Die Release-Notes zu VS Code 1.127 sind ein gutes Beispiel: Abgesehen von einer Funktion, dreht sich auch hier alles nur um Agenten und Large Language Models (LLMs). Gleiches gilt auch für die Vorgängerversion. Der Trend ist klar erkennbar: VS Code entwickelt sich rasant weiter, vor allem in Richtung Frontend für Agenten. Alles andere scheint erst einmal nachrangig.

Manche mögen argumentieren, dass Microsofts Dev-Tool inzwischen so ausgereift ist, dass es an den Kernfunktionalitäten nicht mehr viel zu optimieren gibt – weshalb der Fokus nun eben vor allem darauf liegt, neue Nutzer über den KI-Trend anzuziehen. Das ist allerdings kein Grund dafür, dass all diese KI-Funktionen auf IDE-Ebene integriert werden müssen. Meiner Meinung nach sollte Euer Fokus eher darauf liegen, die native Erweiterbarkeit von VS Code zu fördern – statt keinen Stein auf dem anderen zu lassen, nur um KI-Funktionen zu nativen Elementen zu machen.

Im Grunde geht es Euch in meinen Augen vor allem darum, Visual Studio Code zum ersten Anlaufpunkt für KI zu machen – insbesondere für GitHub Copilot. Allerdings rückt so aus meiner Perspektive die Entwicklererfahrung zugunsten der Allgegenwärtigkeit von KI in den Hintergrund. Wenn Ihr wirklich glaubt, dass jeder User von VS Code ein „Agentic Development Environment“ (ADE) einer IDE vorzieht, liegt Ihr in meinen Augen völlig falsch.

KI-Tools werden zwar nicht wieder verschwinden. Ich glaube aber durchaus, dass es künftig zu einer Konsolidierung kommen wird.  Frontier-Modelle, die alles können und noch sechs weitere Features obendrauf packen, werden sich bald nur noch nur für große Anbieter lohnen, die ein Netz aus API-„Mautstellen“ darum herum errichten – und genug Geld haben, um entsprechende Rechenzentren zu betreiben.

Der allgemeine Trend geht bei KI eher hin zu kleineren, lokal gehosteten Modellen, die spezialisierte Tasks bewältigen – und mit deutlich weniger Aufwand zu trainieren, bereitzustellen und zu betreiben sind. Es macht also echt wenig Sinn, das Pferd hinter den Karren zu spannen – wie bei den nativen KI-Funktionen von VS Code.

Gleichzeitig habe ich die Hoffnung, dass es nicht mehr so lange dauert, bis die KI-Funktionen wieder aus Visual Studio Code herausgelöst und in ein Add-On verfrachtet werden. Bis es so weit ist, bleibt mir wohl nur, mich damit abzufinden, dass mein Lieblings-Editor zunehmend mit KI-Funktionen vollgestopft wird – ganz gleich, ob sie für meinen Anwendungsfall überhaupt Sinn machen oder nicht. Immerhin ist es (noch) möglich, das ganze KI-Zeug in VS Code zu deaktivieren.

Während ich diesen Text hier schreibe, habe ich gerade das Update auf VS Code 1.128 erhalten. Das enthält eine nutzwertige Funktion, die ich sicher oft nutzen werden: die Möglichkeit, Tastatur-Shortcuts auf Betriebssystemebene einzurichten. Ansonsten dreht sich auch bei diesem Update alles nur um eines: KI.

Besinnt Euch darauf, was Visual Studio Code groß gemacht hat – ansonsten riskiert Ihr auf lange Sicht, Benutzer zu verlieren.

Liebe Grüße,

ein genervter Visual-Studio-Code-Poweruser.

Dieser Artikel ist im Original bei unserer Schwesterpublikation Infoworld.com erschienen.

AI agents can turn a clear description into working software, the engineer’s judgement is what makes the difference: deciding what to build, catching the tradeoff the agent didn’t know to weigh, and owning the call on whether the result is right.

That judgement has always been the hard part of engineering. It just used to be bundled into the act of writing code, where a skilled engineer did it while typing. As agents take on more of the typing, that judgement separates out and becomes the clear center of the role. Leaders who adapt early will get their metrics, their talent pipelines, and their delivery models working with this shift rather than against it.

Judgement is defining, constraining, and deciding

Judgement is all about defining the problem precisely enough that an agent builds the right thing. It’s setting the constraints the agent won’t infer on its own. It’s spotting the tradeoff buried three layers down that only shows up if you understand the system. And it’s looking at a finished implementation and knowing whether it’s genuinely good enough to ship.

This is the harder part of the job and the real driver of quality. It was easy to underrate when it lived inside day-to-day coding. Now it’s what separates a strong team from an average one.

The shift changes where time, growth, and metrics go

If the high-value activity is intent, review, and judgement rather than raw output, a few assumptions are worth revisiting.

Where engineers spend their time. Less of the day goes to producing boilerplate and mechanical implementation, and more goes to the reasoning that used to get squeezed to the edges: framing the problem and owning the judgement calls that determine quality.

How teams grow their people. Defining problems well, spotting risk, and critically evaluating work you didn’t write yourself have always been senior skills. When agents handle more of the mechanical work, those skills become learnable earlier. That puts the emphasis on leaders to teach the reasoning: why a choice gets made and how to weigh the tradeoffs that come with it.

What you measure. Lines shipped, tickets closed, and velocity charts all measured throughput of the old scarce resource. They say very little about the new one. The teams that adapt will start measuring the quality of intent going in and the reliability of judgement coming out, because that’s where the results now live.

Reinvest the time you get back

The tempting response is to treat the freed-up capacity as pure speed: same work, same tooling, just faster. That captures the easy win and misses the real one. If engineers spend their reclaimed time reviewing a rising volume of agent output with no better context than before, review quietly becomes the new constraint, and you’ve moved the problem rather than solved it.

The organizations that get ahead will invest the reclaimed capacity into the judgement layer: creating stronger specs and acceptance criteria before work starts, building review practices that test agent output against intent, and capturing the reasoning behind decisions where the next person can find it, so it doesn’t have to be reconstructed every time. That’s how the shift becomes an advantage for your team.

The through-line for leaders

The engineering job is moving up a level, from executing the work to directing and validating it. That’s a more strategic role, and it rewards clarity of thought over speed of output. Leaders who see the shift early can help their engineers grow into the work that’s now most valuable.

See how leading engineering organizations are operationalizing this shift at jira.dev.

You are one of the six billion people (75% of the world population) online today, and every click you make is routed through the data center. Data centers, whether knowingly or unknowingly, play a very critical role in your daily online activities. With an increasing population, increasing usage of online presence, and now omniscient AI, the demand for data centers has increased manyfold, and the trend seems similar to the year 2000, when telephone towers were built to accommodate increased digital presence.

To win the AI race, Hyperscalers (Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, Alibaba, Oracle, IBM, Tencent) are spending huge amounts of money on data center development. In the USA, the hyperscalers are planning to spend $650 billion in 2026, which is around 70% higher than 2025 spending, according to Yahoo Finance.

As per McKinsey research, by 2030, companies will invest around $7 trillion in Capex on data center infrastructure globally. More than $4 trillion will go towards computing hardware investment. More than 40% of this spending will be invested in the United States.

Demand growth in data centers

McKinsey analysis shows that global demand for data center capacity can more than triple by 2030, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 22 per cent. In the USA, data center demand could grow by 20-25 per cent at the same time.  

The data center industry is currently undergoing a violent transition. We are moving away from the era of “bespoke projects” — where every facility was a unique architectural feat — into an era of industrialized infrastructure. With global capital expenditure in the sector projected to hit $3 trillion by 2028, the “bottleneck” has shifted. It is no longer about securing the capital; it is about the physics of the supply chain.

During my tenure at Vantage, managing the intersection of data center construction management (DCCM) and infrastructure management (DCIM), I saw firsthand that the most successful players aren’t those with the deepest pockets, but those with the most integrated data threads. If your construction data in Procore doesn’t talk to your financial reality in Yardi, or your operational capacity in DCIM, you aren’t building a data center — you’re managing a $500 million blind spot.

The death of “sticks and bricks”

Traditionally, data center construction was treated as civil engineering. But for the modern CIO, a data center is a complex product assembly.

The challenges are systemic. We are facing 50-to-80-week lead times for critical “long-pole” items: extra-high-voltage transformers, switchgear, and the liquid cooling manifolds required for the next generation of AI chips. In this environment, the traditional reactive supply chain model is a liability.

To survive the $3 trillion inflow, we must adopt a hybrid-agile SCOR (supply chain operations reference) model. This means applying continuous flow logic to standardized components (like modular power skids) while maintaining agile responsiveness for the volatile IT layer.

The digital bridge: Construction management software  to ERP

The most significant opportunity for CIOs lies in financial-operational integration. In many organizations, there is a data chasm between the construction site and the corporate office. Construction teams live in the construction management software tracking tasks, trades, RFIs and payment submittals. Finance teams operate corporate offices with project management tools (worth remembering that email is a key tool besides spreadsheets and phone calls) tracking capex schedule, commissioning timeline, capital drawdowns and asset lifecycle management.

These systems are siloed; the CIO loses visibility into the total cost to serve. By integrating construction management into the financial system, we create real-time financial visibility of the build. We can see exactly how a three-week delay in a chiller delivery impacts the internal rate of return (IRR) of the entire asset. This isn’t just accounting; it’s strategic telemetry.

From BIM to DCIM: The lifecycle thread

The second bridge is the handoff from construction (BIM) to operations (DCIM). Historically, this handoff was a nightmare of PDFs and Excel sheets. By the time the operations team took the keys, the “as-built” design information was already out of date.

The opportunity today is to maintain a continuous data thread. The sensor data and asset tags established during the “make” phase in our SCOR model should flow directly into the DCIM. This allows us to perform virtual commissioning. Before a single server is racked, we should already have a digital replica of the airflow, power distribution, and cooling capacity.

The scientific inference: AI in the supply chain

As someone who has led data and AI initiatives, I’ve seen the hype. But in the supply chain, the application of AI must be pragmatic, not generative. We don’t need AI to write poems; we need it for predictive procurement. Most organizations manage their procurement in ERP or a mix of a few tools to manage the source-to-settle business flow. Adopting a system workflow improves data collection and the state of the procurement cycle, which in turn provides AI with the context to draw inferences for possible delays and anomalies in original specifications and change orders.

By applying machine learning to global logistics data, we can move from just-in-time to just-in-case modeling. AI can analyze geopolitical risks, shipping lane congestion, and raw material pricing to tell a CIO: “Order your switchgear 14 months early, or your Q3 2027 ‘Power On’ date is at risk.”

Bringing it all together: AI in the supply chain and finance

Why it matters: Approximately 70% of the capex is on this workflow and making timely decisions that directly impact the ready-for-service dates. The current challenge of reactionary adjustment in design to procurement to local fit-out is a significant drain on capex efficiency and cost of capital. Because single-project delivery delays have become so volatile, a massive structural shift is occurring in how digital infrastructure is funded. Single-project debt (special purpose vehicles or SPVs) is facing severe friction. To insulate themselves from RFS shocks, the largest institutional players are moving toward permanent platform capital — aggregating exposure across dozens of global assets simultaneously.

Navigating these complex multi-billion-dollar engineering projects distributed over a large geography is simply unmanageable without rethinking and re-engineering existing tools and processes.

The roadmap for the modern CIO

To lead this transformation, CIOs must move beyond the IT shop mentality and become master orchestrators of the supply chain. Here is the 1500-word reality condensed into three mandates:

1. Standardize the product: Stop designing bespoke facilities. Move toward DFMA (design for manufacturing and assembly). If 70% of your data center can be built in a factory and shipped as modules, you bypass the unpredictability of on-site labor.
2. Integrate the financial stack: If your construction management software and your ERP aren’t sharing a heartbeat, your data is lying to you. Force the integration between Procore and Yardi.
3. Own the long poles: Don’t leave the procurement of transformers and cooling units to general contractors. Use your balance sheet to secure these items years in advance. In 2026, inventory is the new currency.

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

Your CFO has a simple question. “We’re spending more on AI. What are we getting for it?” Most CIOs cannot answer it — not because AI isn’t creating value, but because the accounting systems we inherited were built before AI existed as a category of labor.

This June, the conversation shifted from token maxing to token cutting. The New York Times reported that Meta, Uber, Walmart and Amazon are capping employee AI usage. Uber blew through its 2026 AI budget in four months. Satya Nadella started framing it as human capital versus token capital.

All of that is true. None of it answers the CFO. Capping tokens is an input lever, not an output measure. And the human-versus-token framing names two sources of labor when the reality is four.

The enterprise now has 4 sources of labor

There are humans. There are humans assisted by AI. Humans are working alongside AI. And humans are managing AI. Sources two through four are all supervised machine labor at different intensities — none of them have a line item, a manager or an hourly rate. In our 2026 AI Labor Report, 78% of leaders view AI as both software and a labor force. The org chart has not caught up. Neither has the P&L.

Lexi Reese

Most enterprises are stuck at A-Level 1 with no accounting for any of it, while quietly sliding into A-Level 2. The job descriptions have not caught up. The budget has not caught up. You cannot upskill into a role that has not been named.

AI is the only category of work the modern enterprise has ever bought without a system of record for what it produced.

What you are actually running is supervised machine labor

The model does a first pass. A human makes it usable. One hundred percent of leaders we surveyed said AI work requires human review before it ships; 34% said substantial editing. That is a workforce with no manager, no hourly rate and no line on the income statement.

The accounting breaks in 3 places at once

Under GAAP: COGS if it helps produce the product, OpEx if it does work for you. The same workflow can hit all three buckets at once. A tier-one support resolution involves the human’s salary (OpEx), the AI’s tokens (COGS if support is a delivered service), and the supervisor’s review time (OpEx). Three buckets. One piece of work. No reconciliation. The token invoice arrives from Anthropic or OpenAI and gets coded to OpEx-software because that is what the bill looks like. Audit partners will be asking about this by next year.

When you call AI a tool, you book it like software. When you call it labor, you have to ask which kind and what it is producing.

The per-employee number is the wrong unit

Per-employee AI spend collapses a workforce into a per-head average. It hides the only number that matters: What AI is producing inside each workflow.

Lanai measured two teams inside the same finance organization. Same monthly prep and variance analysis. AI took the same amount of time to produce outputs of similar quality. The only variable was the model each team reached for by default — a choice nobody had made deliberately and nobody had seen until it was measured.

Lexi Reese

The gap existed for months before anyone saw it.

Faith-based budgeting — the organizational equivalent of putting money in the collection plate and hoping God handles the ROI — is what made it invisible.

Lexi Reese

AI labor orphaning

That is not a measurement problem. It is a category error. We call it AI Labor Orphaning. AI does the work. The output gets credited to the human who approved it. The token bill lands in OpEx-software. The supervision time absorbs into salaried hours nobody is auditing. Eighty-seven percent of leaders admitted AI output is sometimes or always credited entirely to the human employee. This is the last-click attribution problem of the AI era, running in reverse.

What fills the vacuum? Belief. Forty-three percent assume that if AI was involved, it contributed. Only twelve percent have a clear methodology. Seventy-nine percent are worried AI budgets will be cut because they cannot connect spend to results. The cuts are not coming because AI does not work. They are coming because nobody can prove that it did.

Capping tokens may look like responsible governance, but it is like turning off a staticky radio rather than tuning the dial. The companies cutting AI budgets in 2026 will discover in 2027 that they cut the workflows that worked alongside the ones that did not.

The real cost of AI is not the model. It is the redesign

Three layers. Most organizations only manage the first.

Lexi Reese

What to actually do

The 12% of organizations that can answer the CFO treat AI like every other category of labor — with a cost per AI Work Hour that is accounted for by a set of AI assistants, co-pilots and agents that are held accountable to performance standards. 

• Audit the four sources separately. Each A-Level has different token economics, SaaS implications and human redesign requirements.
• Find the embedded SaaS repricing before your next renewal. Pull your top 20 contracts. Ask whether AI features previously included are now priced incrementally.
• Redesign the human role at A-Level 2 before you scale it. You cannot upskill into a role that has not been named.
• Build a system of record before you build the next agent. Start with one department. Two weeks. You will find something that surprises you.
• Stop calling it a tool. Start calling it labor. The language determines the chart of accounts.

When your blended AI rate is $22 an hour, the conversation shifts from ‘we spent $340,000 on AI’ to ‘we acquired a skilled workforce at $22 an hour.’ That sentence is defensible. A vendor invoice is not.

The CIOs who will have a defensible AI story in 2027 are the ones who renamed the work in 2026. Not because technology changed. Because they finally built the accounting to see it.

Findings are drawn from the 2026 AI Labor Report, fielded by Wakefield Research with 200 senior technology leaders at US enterprises of 1,000-plus employees, March 20–April 8, 2026 (±6.9pp at 95% confidence).

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

Here in this high-tech era of 2026, keeping important info backed up and synced should be effortless and something that just happens on its own, automatically, without any actual thought or ongoing human effort.

In many areas of our digital life, that mercifully does Just Work™ in exactly that way. Fire up an email in most modern mail services, and you can stop at any point and find your in-progress draft in that same app on any other device. The same applies to any file you’re finessing within Google Drive or other cloud storage services or document you’re dawdling over in Docs.

One area where seamless syncing somehow still doesn’t occur, though, is in the domain of downloaded documents on Android. If someone sends you a PDF or a Word file and you save it to your phone, that file exists in an archaic-seeming silo — only locally, on that one gadget. And that, of course, means (a) you can’t access it from any other device, and (b) if you misplace your phone or move into a new one at some point along the way, the file will be left behind in time and entirely unavailable.

Well, take a moment to join me in celebration: Amidst all the Gemini gobbledegook that no one asked for (and that often falls somewhere between “pointless” and “actively counterproductive”), Google’s giving us a major upgrade to Android’s backup capabilities right now. It’s a simple-seeming switch buried in your system settings, and it’s up to you to find and activate it.

Once you do, though, those once-orphaned documents on your Android device’s local storage will be perpetually synced and protected, automatically, without any ongoing thought or effort.

All you’ve gotta do is find and flip that one new switch.

[Don’t let yourself miss an ounce of Android Intelligence. Join my free weekly Android Intelligence newsletter and get one new thing to try in your inbox every Friday!]

The Android backup lowdown

So, for a quick bit of pertinent context on this: Android’s backup systems have actually come a really long way over the years.

‘Twas a time, y’see, when little to nothing about you would sync and carry over automatically from one Android device to another. Years ago — back in the ancient-seeming prehistoric era of the early 2010s — Android enthusiasts in the know would rely on community-created third-party apps for everything from remembering and resyncing downloaded apps to restoring data from within those apps and onward. And reconfiguring your system preferences would be a whole time-consuming song and dance every single time you reset a device or moved into a new one, as little to nothing would automatically carry over.