ISO/IEC 27001:2022 provider failover and degradation architecture for enterprise LLM — Reference Architecture

Reference architecture · published 2026-10-16 · regulated enterprise · ISO/IEC 27001:2022 · layout diagram_first · implementation executed in CI before publish

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]
Request path. Rendered as a diagram where scripting is available; the Mermaid source above is the authoritative definition either way.

The parts you have to build

  1. Quality-ranked tiers — Explicit integer quality per provider, not an implicit order.
  2. Circuit breaker — A failing tier leaves rotation instead of being retried into the ground.
  3. Half-open probe — One probe after cooldown; recovery is tested, not assumed.
  4. Tier label on response — Every answer names its tier and whether it was degraded.
  5. Quality floor per caller — A caller declares a minimum; below it is a refusal.
  6. 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.

Implementation parameters for this deployment shape
Deployment vectorCustomer-managed VPC, provider model endpoint pinned to region
Security standardISO/IEC 27001:2022
Applicable regimesSOC 2 Type II, ISO/IEC 27001:2022, GDPR
Latency SLAp95 ≤ 600ms — interactive surfaces need sub-second; batch jobs do not
Integration protocolREST over HTTPS — the widest compatibility and the easiest audit story
Idempotency controlan Idempotency-Key header, honoured for 24h
Throughput envelope~2k rps per gateway node before connection churn dominates
Middleware requirementpolicy decision point in front of the model gateway
Data classes in scopePII, commercial-in-confidence data
Retention obligationper the data class retention schedule, enforced automatically
Data residencycontracted processing region, asserted on every response
Contractual instrumentDPA plus a disclosed subprocessor list
Systems of recordSAP, Salesforce, Workday
Primary failure modea 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.

Why this blocks a rollout rather than slowing it: Silent failover converts an availability incident into a quality incident with no signal attached. The response has to name the tier that produced it, and a caller that cannot accept a lower tier needs a refusal rather than a quietly worse answer. In regulated enterprise the cost of getting it wrong is concrete — a failed Type II observation window restarts the clock.

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.

CategoryRiskControlAcceptance parameter
ISO/IEC 27001:2022Controls exist technically but are absent from the SoA and registerGenerate register entries from the deployed control set so the register cannot drift from the system100% of deployed controls map to an SoA entry with an owner and a review date
OperationalSilent failover hides a quality drop from consumersEvery response names its tier and carries a degraded flag100% of responses labelled; degraded responses counted per hour
OperationalRetry storm against an already-failing providerCircuit breaker opens after a threshold and cools down before a probeNo more than the threshold of calls to a failing tier per cooldown
OperationalA caller receives an answer below its acceptable qualityDeclared quality floor; below it the ladder refuses rather than serves0 responses below a caller's declared floor; refusal raised instead
Cost controlFailover to a more expensive tier inflates spendTier order is quality-ranked and cost is recorded per tier per hourSpend per tier visible; failover cost attributable
Latency SLASerial failover stacks timeouts and breaches the SLOPer-tier timeout budget; the ladder's total is boundedTotal time bounded by the declared budget, measured at p95
OperationalRecovery is assumed rather than verifiedHalf-open state admits a single probe before restoring rotationOne probe per cooldown; full restoration only after it succeeds
Data privacyFailover sends data to a provider outside the contracted regionTiers carry a residency attribute; out-of-region tiers excluded by policy0 failovers to a tier outside the contracted processing region

Questions to answer before approval

See also

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
Request an architecture review