AI System for Preparing Cybersecurity Alerts for Analyst Review

The problem

In day-to-day operations, SIEM alerts, asset context and incident history arrive through different systems and event records, preventing the team from seeing the case on a single timeline.

As a result, source links can be lost while the evidence-backed alert summary and priority recommendation are prepared, the case can be routed to the wrong team, and the basis for the technical decision can remain unclear.

An incomplete workflow may overlook a critical asset or conflicting telemetry, while an incorrect system action could close a genuine attack.

What we set out to improve

• Time taken for the draft evidence-backed alert summary and priority recommendation to be ready for specialist review
• Correct referral of records involving a critical asset or conflicting telemetry to the appropriate specialist queue
• Record of recommendations corrected or rejected by the SOC analyst

How the system works

1. 01 Retrieve SIEM alerts, asset context and incident history from authorised sources
2. 02 Verify the source, timestamp and record identifier
3. 03 Add the relevant asset, user, shop, vehicle or content context
4. 04 Prepare a draft evidence-backed alert summary and priority recommendation
5. 05 Compare the draft with technical rules and authority boundaries
6. 06 Check for exceptions: a critical asset or conflicting telemetry
7. 07 Obtain the SOC analyst's approval, correction or rejection
8. 08 Write the input, recommendation, changes and final decision to the audit log

Methods we used

• Source- and time-traceable data extraction for SIEM alerts, asset context and incident history
• Structured output that restricts the evidence-backed alert summary and priority recommendation fields to technical rules
• An exception gate that separates cases involving a critical asset or conflicting telemetry from system action
• An authorised queue that presents the evidence and recommendation together for the SOC analyst
• Duplicate-processing controls and a rollback record to address the risk of closing a genuine attack

Where people stay involved

Data and security

Only fields required for the task are processed from SIEM alerts, asset context and incident history. Source-system permissions are preserved, and unnecessary personal, technical and security-sensitive data is minimised before being sent to the model. Every retrieval, recommendation, human change and target-system action is written to the audit log.

Who this suits

Frequently asked questions