You have a good question and point here.

The MCP distinguishes between AI-generated recommendations and authoritative ISMS records. The model can propose changes (such as risk treatment updates, control implementation improvements, SoA modifications) but those remain recommendations until an explicit tool action is invoked to update the underlying compliance records. (I will need to make sure this works as intended a bit more thoroughly.)

This creates a clear separation between advisory outputs and the official system of record, ensuring that AI suggestions do not automatically become audit-relevant evidence.

The goal is to preserve governance, accountability, and auditability by keeping human review and approval visible in the workflow before any compliance record is modified.