When your AI deals with another company's AI, who answers for it?
Soon, some transactions between companies will be negotiated and executed by software on both sides: a purchasing system placing orders with a supplier's sales system, a claims system talking to an insurer's. It will be fast. And when something goes wrong, the first question will be who is responsible, and the answer had better already exist.
Three things to agree before the first transaction
A controlled entrance. Outside systems should reach yours only through a defined interface, with their own credentials, limits on what they can do and how often, the ability to cut them off instantly, and a record of every exchange. Never through the same access your own staff use.
Information that travels with the data. When your system sends an order, a price or a document, it should carry what it is, who issued it, how it may be used, under what terms, and how disputes are settled. The system receiving it can then check before acting, instead of guessing.
Responsibility agreed in advance. Who bears the cost of an error, up to what amount, how a mistake is corrected, and how a disagreement is resolved. Written with both legal teams before the integration goes live, not argued about in court afterwards.
Keep the record
If a dispute arises, you need to show exactly what your system received, decided and sent. That is only possible if you keep a complete record of its activity, in a place you control. With it, accountability is a search. Without it, it is a request to someone else's lawyers.
Trust is the advantage
As more business runs between systems, the companies others prefer to deal with will not be the ones with the cleverest software. They will be the ones whose systems behave predictably, whose terms are clear, and who can always show what happened. If your legal team is not involved when the connection is designed, the connection is a future dispute.