ISO/IEC 27001:2022 provider failover and degradation architecture for enterprise LLM — Reference Architecture
The control that resolves this is a Labelled Degradation Ladder, evaluated before the request reaches a model provider rather than audited afterwards. In regulated enterprise the binding constraint is ISO/IEC 27001:2022, and the question it actually asks is is this risk on the register with a named owner and a treatment. The shape below holds p95 ≤ 600ms over REST over HTTPS, and ships with a standard-library implementation that runs as written.
The request path
Labelled Degradation Ladder — the request path, with the decision points that must exist before the first model call:
flowchart LR
REQ[Request + min_quality] --> T1{Tier 1 breaker closed?}
T1 -->|open| T2{Tier 2}
T1 -->|closed| CALL1[Call tier 1]
CALL1 -->|fails| BRK[Record failure<br/>maybe open breaker] --> T2
T2 -->|below min_quality| REFUSE[Refuse: no acceptable tier]
T2 -->|ok| CALL2[Call tier 2] --> LAB[Label response<br/>degraded=true]The parts you have to build
- Quality-ranked tiers — Explicit integer quality per provider, not an implicit order.
- Circuit breaker — A failing tier leaves rotation instead of being retried into the ground.
- Half-open probe — One probe after cooldown; recovery is tested, not assumed.
- Tier label on response — Every answer names its tier and whether it was degraded.
- Quality floor per caller — A caller declares a minimum; below it is a refusal.
- Degradation events — Each failover recorded — the signal the incident needs.
Deployment parameters
Every value below is a parameter you can hold a vendor or an internal team to. Adjectives are not acceptance criteria.
| Deployment vector | Customer-managed VPC, provider model endpoint pinned to region |
|---|---|
| Security standard | ISO/IEC 27001:2022 |
| Applicable regimes | SOC 2 Type II, ISO/IEC 27001:2022, GDPR |
| Latency SLA | p95 ≤ 600ms — interactive surfaces need sub-second; batch jobs do not |
| Integration protocol | REST over HTTPS — the widest compatibility and the easiest audit story |
| Idempotency control | an Idempotency-Key header, honoured for 24h |
| Throughput envelope | ~2k rps per gateway node before connection churn dominates |
| Middleware requirement | policy decision point in front of the model gateway |
| Data classes in scope | PII, commercial-in-confidence data |
| Retention obligation | per the data class retention schedule, enforced automatically |
| Data residency | contracted processing region, asserted on every response |
| Contractual instrument | DPA plus a disclosed subprocessor list |
| Systems of record | SAP, Salesforce, Workday |
| Primary failure mode | a retried POST creating a duplicate record |
The architecture friction point
When the primary provider degrades, traffic fails over to a weaker model and the answers keep flowing. Nobody downstream is told the quality changed, so the incident is discovered in complaints.
What ISO/IEC 27001:2022 specifically requires
ISO 27001 is a management-system standard: the auditor checks that risks are identified, owned, treated and reviewed on a cycle. A perfect technical control that is absent from the risk register is a nonconformity.
The artifact that satisfies it is risk register entries with owners, treatments and review dates. The way teams most often fail it: a technically sound control that no Statement of Applicability references, so it cannot be evidenced.
Working implementation — Degradation ladder with circuit breaker and quality floor
Standard-library Python, no external dependencies, runs as written. Executed by the publish gate: if it raises, this page does not ship. Wire it behind REST over HTTPS; the failure mode it guards against is a retried POST creating a duplicate record. The output you hand the assessor is the Statement of Applicability extract.
"""Degradation ladder with a circuit breaker and labelled quality tiers.
The failure: a provider degrades, traffic silently fails over to a weaker
model, and nobody downstream knows the answer came from a lower tier. The
control is that degradation is explicit and labelled on the response, so a
consumer can refuse a tier it cannot accept, and that a failing provider is
taken out of rotation rather than retried into the ground.
"""
import time
class ProviderDown(Exception):
pass
class CircuitBreaker:
def __init__(self, threshold: int = 3, cooldown_s: float = 30.0):
self.threshold, self.cooldown_s = threshold, cooldown_s
self.failures, self.opened_at = 0, None
def record_failure(self, now: float) -> None:
self.failures += 1
if self.failures >= self.threshold and self.opened_at is None:
self.opened_at = now
def record_success(self) -> None:
self.failures, self.opened_at = 0, None
def closed(self, now: float) -> bool:
if self.opened_at is None:
return True
if now - self.opened_at >= self.cooldown_s:
self.opened_at, self.failures = None, 0 # half-open: allow a probe
return True
return False
class Tier:
def __init__(self, name: str, quality: int, call):
self.name, self.quality, self.call = name, quality, call
self.breaker = CircuitBreaker()
class DegradationLadder:
"""Tiers in descending quality. The response always names the tier that
produced it; a caller declaring min_quality gets a refusal rather than a
quietly worse answer."""
def __init__(self, tiers: list):
self.tiers = sorted(tiers, key=lambda t: -t.quality)
self.events: list[dict] = []
def complete(self, prompt: str, min_quality: int = 0, now=None) -> dict:
now = now if now is not None else time.monotonic()
attempted = []
for tier in self.tiers:
if tier.quality < min_quality:
continue
if not tier.breaker.closed(now):
attempted.append({"tier": tier.name, "skipped": "circuit open"})
continue
try:
text = tier.call(prompt)
except ProviderDown:
tier.breaker.record_failure(now)
attempted.append({"tier": tier.name, "failed": True})
continue
tier.breaker.record_success()
degraded = tier is not self.tiers[0]
self.events.append({"tier": tier.name, "degraded": degraded})
return {"text": text, "tier": tier.name, "quality": tier.quality,
"degraded": degraded, "attempts": attempted}
raise ProviderDown(
f"no tier at or above quality {min_quality} available: {attempted}")
if __name__ == "__main__":
def primary(p): raise ProviderDown("502 from primary")
def secondary(p): return f"secondary:{p}"
def local(p): return f"local-small:{p}"
ladder = DegradationLadder([
Tier("frontier", 100, primary),
Tier("secondary", 70, secondary),
Tier("local-small", 30, local)])
r = ladder.complete("summarise", now=0.0)
assert r["tier"] == "secondary" and r["degraded"] is True, r
assert r["attempts"][0]["failed"], r
# A caller that cannot accept degradation gets an error, not a worse answer.
strict = DegradationLadder([Tier("frontier", 100, primary),
Tier("local-small", 30, local)])
try:
strict.complete("x", min_quality=90, now=0.0)
raise AssertionError("served below the declared quality floor")
except ProviderDown:
pass
# The breaker opens after repeated failures and stops the retry storm.
t = Tier("flaky", 50, primary)
for i in range(3):
try:
t.call("x")
except ProviderDown:
t.breaker.record_failure(now=float(i))
assert not t.breaker.closed(now=3.0), "breaker should be open"
assert t.breaker.closed(now=40.0), "breaker should half-open after cooldown"
print("Degradation ladder + circuit breaker: OK")
print(f" served tier={r['tier']} degraded={r['degraded']}, "
f"events {len(ladder.events)}")
The ISO/IEC 27001:2022 control, as code
Statement of Applicability with operating evidence. This is the artifact an assessor asks for under ISO/IEC 27001:2022 specifically — it is not the same control as the one above, and a system that implements one does not thereby implement the other. It executes under the same publish gate.
"""Annex A control to evidence mapping behind a Statement of Applicability.
ISO/IEC 27001:2022 turns on the SoA: every Annex A control is either applicable
with a justification and evidence, or excluded with a justification. The audit
failure is an applicable control whose evidence is a policy document rather
than a record that the control operated.
"""
ANNEX_A_2022 = {
"A.5.23": "Information security for use of cloud services",
"A.8.2": "Privileged access rights",
"A.8.10": "Information deletion",
"A.8.12": "Data leakage prevention",
"A.8.15": "Logging",
"A.8.16": "Monitoring activities",
"A.8.24": "Use of cryptography",
"A.8.28": "Secure coding",
}
EVIDENCE_KINDS = {"record", "configuration", "test_result"}
NON_EVIDENCE = {"policy", "intent", "roadmap"}
class StatementOfApplicability:
def __init__(self, scope: str):
self.scope = scope
self.entries: dict[str, dict] = {}
def apply(self, control: str, justification: str,
evidence_ref: str, evidence_kind: str) -> None:
if control not in ANNEX_A_2022:
raise KeyError(f"{control} is not an Annex A:2022 control")
if evidence_kind in NON_EVIDENCE:
raise ValueError(
f"{control}: {evidence_kind!r} describes intent, not operation")
if evidence_kind not in EVIDENCE_KINDS:
raise ValueError(f"{control}: unknown evidence kind {evidence_kind!r}")
self.entries[control] = {"applicable": True, "justification": justification,
"evidence_ref": evidence_ref,
"evidence_kind": evidence_kind}
def exclude(self, control: str, justification: str) -> None:
if control not in ANNEX_A_2022:
raise KeyError(f"{control} is not an Annex A:2022 control")
if len(justification.split()) < 5:
raise ValueError(f"{control}: exclusion needs a real justification")
self.entries[control] = {"applicable": False, "justification": justification}
def unaddressed(self) -> list[str]:
return sorted(set(ANNEX_A_2022) - set(self.entries))
def certifiable(self) -> dict:
gaps = self.unaddressed()
applied = [c for c, e in self.entries.items() if e["applicable"]]
return {"scope": self.scope, "applied": sorted(applied),
"excluded": sorted(c for c, e in self.entries.items()
if not e["applicable"]),
"unaddressed": gaps, "certifiable": not gaps}
if __name__ == "__main__":
soa = StatementOfApplicability("LLM platform, production tenant")
soa.apply("A.5.23", "Model inference is a cloud service",
"cfg://gateway/allowed-providers.yaml", "configuration")
soa.apply("A.8.2", "Operators hold privileged access to prompts",
"rec://iam/quarterly-access-review-2026Q3", "record")
soa.apply("A.8.10", "Retention is enforced on prompt logs",
"test://retention/expiry-suite-2026-10", "test_result")
soa.apply("A.8.12", "Egress to model providers can leak data",
"cfg://dlp/egress-classifier.yaml", "configuration")
soa.apply("A.8.15", "All inference events are logged",
"rec://audit/chain-head-2026-10-16", "record")
soa.apply("A.8.16", "Anomalous usage is monitored",
"rec://siem/llm-usage-alerts", "record")
soa.apply("A.8.24", "TLS and at-rest encryption",
"test://crypto/tls-config-scan", "test_result")
soa.exclude("A.8.28", "No application code is developed within this scope "
"boundary; the platform is configured, not coded")
report = soa.certifiable()
assert report["certifiable"], report
assert len(report["applied"]) == 7 and len(report["excluded"]) == 1, report
try:
soa.apply("A.8.15", "we have a logging policy",
"doc://policies/logging.pdf", "policy")
raise AssertionError("accepted a policy document as operating evidence")
except ValueError:
pass
partial = StatementOfApplicability("partial")
partial.apply("A.8.15", "logging", "rec://x", "record")
assert not partial.certifiable()["certifiable"]
assert len(partial.certifiable()["unaddressed"]) == 7
print("ISO/IEC 27001:2022 SoA evidence mapping: OK")
print(f" applied {len(report['applied'])}, excluded {len(report['excluded'])}, "
f"unaddressed {len(report['unaddressed'])}")
Risk register with acceptance criteria
Each row carries an acceptance parameter rather than an adjective, because "low latency" cannot be signed off. Retention here is bound by per the data class retention schedule, enforced automatically.
| Category | Risk | Control | Acceptance parameter |
|---|---|---|---|
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | Controls exist technically but are absent from the SoA and register | Generate register entries from the deployed control set so the register cannot drift from the system | 100% of deployed controls map to an SoA entry with an owner and a review date |
| Operational | Silent failover hides a quality drop from consumers | Every response names its tier and carries a degraded flag | 100% of responses labelled; degraded responses counted per hour |
| Operational | Retry storm against an already-failing provider | Circuit breaker opens after a threshold and cools down before a probe | No more than the threshold of calls to a failing tier per cooldown |
| Operational | A caller receives an answer below its acceptable quality | Declared quality floor; below it the ladder refuses rather than serves | 0 responses below a caller's declared floor; refusal raised instead |
| Cost control | Failover to a more expensive tier inflates spend | Tier order is quality-ranked and cost is recorded per tier per hour | Spend per tier visible; failover cost attributable |
| Latency SLA | Serial failover stacks timeouts and breaches the SLO | Per-tier timeout budget; the ladder's total is bounded | Total time bounded by the declared budget, measured at p95 |
| Operational | Recovery is assumed rather than verified | Half-open state admits a single probe before restoring rotation | One probe per cooldown; full restoration only after it succeeds |
| Data privacy | Failover sends data to a provider outside the contracted region | Tiers carry a residency attribute; out-of-region tiers excluded by policy | 0 failovers to a tier outside the contracted processing region |
Questions to answer before approval
- Where is this control in the risk register and the Statement of Applicability, who owns it, and when was it last reviewed?
Register entries are generated from the deployed control set, so every control has an SoA reference, a named owner and a review date that cannot silently lapse. - When the primary provider fails, how does a downstream consumer learn the answer came from a weaker model?
The response names the tier that produced it and carries a degraded flag. A consumer reading the label can treat a degraded answer differently; silent failover is what this design exists to prevent. - What stops a failing provider from being retried thousands of times a minute?
The circuit breaker. After the failure threshold it opens and the tier is skipped entirely until the cooldown elapses, so a failing provider leaves rotation rather than absorbing retries. - Can a caller that requires top-tier quality be served a degraded answer?
No. The caller declares a minimum quality and tiers below it are never attempted — the ladder raises instead of serving, which is the correct outcome when no acceptable tier exists. - How do you know a recovered provider is actually healthy before restoring full traffic?
The breaker goes half-open after cooldown and admits a single probe. Full rotation is restored only after that probe succeeds, so recovery is tested rather than assumed. - What prevents failover from moving data outside the contracted region?
Each tier carries a residency attribute and policy excludes out-of-region tiers from the ladder, so a failover cannot quietly relocate processing.
See also
- Part of enterprise ai compliance architecture.
- HIPAA provider failover and degradation architecture for enterprise LLM applies the same mechanism under a different obligation.
- For the related constraint, see SOC 2 Type II provider failover and degradation architecture.
- This pattern also governs EU AI Act provider failover and degradation architecture for enterprise.
- PCI DSS 4.0 provider failover and degradation architecture for enterprise covers the adjacent case.
- If this is the blocker in front of you: enterprise AI infrastructure review.
Enterprise infrastructure review
If you are carrying this blocker, the useful next step is not a demo. It is a review of your actual request path against the control points above:
- Which of the 6 components exist in your estate today, and which are assumed
- Your current numbers against the 7 acceptance parameters, starting with p95 ≤ 600ms
- Which ISO/IEC 27001:2022 control questions you cannot yet answer, and what closes each gap