Contract and BAA boundary
Confirm the organization, eligible service, permitted functionality, endpoint, and contractual terms directly with OpenAI and qualified advisers.
Reference architecture · 10 minute read
This illustrative flow shows the questions a health-tech team must answer around an OpenAI API workload. Modified Retention does not by itself make a workload compliant.
Illustrative reference flow
Example: an authorized care-team user requests a draft summary from an application. The organization must validate every boundary and minimize what is sent.
[Authorized user]
|
v
[Organization identity] -- deny by default --> [Application authorization]
| |
| minimum necessary input
| v
| [Prompt assembly]
| |
| approved endpoint + project policy
| v
| [OpenAI API]
| |
| generated draft only
| v
+------------------------------------ [Human review gate]
|
approve / edit / reject
v
[Authorized destination]
Separate control paths: audit events -> security monitoring
errors -> redacted diagnostics
incidents -> response and vendor processFive responsibility layers
Confirm the organization, eligible service, permitted functionality, endpoint, and contractual terms directly with OpenAI and qualified advisers.
Verify Modified Retention provisioning, project inheritance, endpoint-specific storage behavior, feature eligibility, and who can change these settings.
Enforce authorization, PHI minimization, input validation, tool restrictions, output handling, human review, and safe failure behavior.
Protect secrets, network paths, databases, queues, observability systems, backups, deployments, and the other vendors in the flow.
Assign monitoring, incident, change-management, access-review, training, model-evaluation, and vendor-review owners.
Customer decisions
| Customer decision | Evidence to collect | Stop condition |
|---|---|---|
| Which fields are minimum necessary? | Approved data dictionary and prompt template | Raw record forwarding is still possible |
| Who may invoke the workflow? | Identity group, authorization test, access review | Shared accounts or ambiguous end-user identity |
| Which endpoint and features are used? | API inventory mapped to current eligibility and storage documentation | Unreviewed tool, file, search, MCP, or stateful feature |
| What is logged? | Redacted event schema and negative tests for content leakage | Prompts or outputs reach general application logs |
| Where is human review required? | Workflow state, reviewer role, reject path, audit evidence | Generated content can become a clinical or customer record automatically |
| How are incidents handled? | Runbook, vendor contacts, containment test, notification owner | No owner or tested containment path |
Official sources
Apply the flow
Do not send sensitive information.