---
name: compliance-theater
version: "1.0.0"
description: Detect where an organization passes an audit but remains exposed — seven documented compliance theater patterns with specific detection tests
triggers:
  - compliance theater
  - paper compliance
  - audit but exposed
  - compliant but vulnerable
  - compliance gap
  - checkbox security
  - audit theater
data_deps:
  - atlas-ttps.json
  - cve-catalog.json
  - exploit-availability.json
atlas_refs: []
attack_refs: []
framework_gaps:
  - ALL-AI-PIPELINE-INTEGRITY
  - ALL-PROMPT-INJECTION-ACCESS-CONTROL
  - FedRAMP-Rev5-Moderate
  - CMMC-2.0-Level-2
last_threat_review: "2026-06-10"
---

# Compliance Theater Detection

Compliance theater is the condition where an organization passes an audit of a security control while remaining exposed to the threat that control is supposed to address. It is not fraud — the control exists, operates, and generates the required evidence. The problem is the control was designed for a different threat environment.

This skill identifies the specific, testable conditions where audit-passing controls provide no real protection.

---

## Frontmatter Scope

The `atlas_refs` and `attack_refs` arrays are intentionally empty. This skill is a meta-analysis that correlates findings *across* every other playbook and skill in the project — it has no native TTP attachment because its input is the existing TTP-to-control evidence base produced elsewhere. The `framework_gaps` array is populated because each theater pattern below points at specific named controls (FedRAMP-Rev5-Moderate, CMMC-2.0-Level-2, and the two ALL- gaps) whose mid-2026 inadequacy is the skill's primary subject. The Defensive Countermeasure Mapping below is a *routing table* rather than a defensive-control prescription — for each theater pattern, it names which downstream skill owns the canonical D3FEND mapping. This skill produces theater findings; the cited downstream skill produces the technique-level remediation.

---

## Threat Context (mid-2026)

The defining mid-2026 reality is that an organization can pass a clean ISO 27001:2022, SOC 2 Type II, or PCI DSS 4.0 audit while remaining exposed to KEV-listed deterministic LPEs and zero-interaction RCEs. The contrast cases drive every theater pattern below:

- **CVE-2026-31431 (Copy Fail)** — Linux kernel LPE, CISA KEV, AI-discovered in approximately one hour, deterministic 732-byte public PoC, no race condition. An organization with an A.8.8 / SI-2 / PCI 6.3.3 program that meets the framework's "appropriate timescale" language (commonly 30 days for High) is *passing the audit* during the active-exploitation window. This is the canonical Patch Management Theater case. Catalog entry: `data/cve-catalog.json`.
- **CVE-2026-30615 (Windsurf MCP local-vector RCE)** — CVSS 8.0 / AV:L / RWEP 35. 150M+ combined downloads across MCP-capable assistants share the architectural surface. An organization's CC9 / SA-12 / A.5.19 vendor management program rated as "operating effectively" by an auditor typically has zero coverage of MCP servers running in developer environments. The vendor-management control passes the audit and provides no control surface for the attack class. Catalog entry: `data/cve-catalog.json`.
- **CVE-2025-53773 (GitHub Copilot YOLO-mode RCE)** — CVSS 7.8 / AV:L / RWEP 30. An organization's SOC 2 CC6 access control program is rated "passed" while prompt injection coerces the AI assistant into flipping `chat.tools.autoApprove: true` and converting subsequent tool calls into shell execution under the AI service account's authorized identity. The audit evidence (IAM reviews, access logs with no unauthorized events) is correct and complete; it provides zero signal about the intrusion.

In each case, a real-world public exploit produced by current adversary TTPs renders a passing audit non-informative about actual security posture. The seven theater patterns below codify the most common recurrences of this pattern.

---

## Framework Lag Declaration

Compliance theater is the operational shadow of framework lag. Per-framework lag statements that drive the theater patterns in this skill:

| Framework | Control | Lag (what the control language does not cover) |
|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 | CC6 (Logical and Physical Access) | Logical-access language was drafted for human-controlled accounts and machine identities in traditional IAM. It does not cover prompt injection as an access control bypass: the AI service account is authorized, monitored, and within least-privilege scope; the attacker's intent travels through the model's context window and never appears in access logs. See CVE-2025-53773. |
| ISO 27001:2022 | A.8.8 (Management of Technical Vulnerabilities) | "Appropriate timescales" is undefined; auditor practice typically reads as 30 days for High / 90 days for Medium. The language does not operationalize the CISA KEV class. For CVE-2026-31431 (KEV-listed 2026-05-01, federal due 2026-05-15) these timescales mean active exploitation during the "compliant" remediation window. |
| PCI DSS 4.0 | 6.3.3 (Patches) | The one-month critical-patch window predates AI-assisted exploit development. For any CVE with CISA KEV listing and a public PoC, the one-month window is an exploitation-acceptance window, not a security window. |
| SOC 2 | CC7 (System Operations) | Anomaly detection guidance has no baseline for AI API traffic, AI-as-C2 (SesameOp), or PROMPTFLUX behavioral patterns. The control passes the audit with no AI-relevant detection surface. |
| ISO 27001:2022 | A.5.19 / A.5.20 (Supplier relationships) | Drafted for SaaS and outsourced-service vendors. Does not cover MCP servers as third-party code executing inside the developer environment, nor LLM API providers as data processors for sensitive prompt content. |
| NIST 800-53 | CM-3 (Configuration Change Control) | Drafted for changes the organization controls. LLM model updates by external providers occur without operator notification or consent, on the provider's schedule, and can alter safety-relevant behavior. The change-management control passes the audit and has zero coverage of this change vector. |
| NIST 800-53 | AT-2 (Security Awareness Training) | Drafted against human-template phishing. 82.6% of phishing emails now contain AI-generated content. Grammar/style heuristics are no longer reliable detectors. A < 5% click rate on human-generated simulations says nothing about resistance to AI-generated highly personalized spear-phishing. |
| US FedRAMP | Rev 5 Moderate baseline | Authorization-as-evidence pattern. A current ATO certifies that the CSP's control implementation was assessed against the Rev 5 Moderate baseline at a point in time. It does not certify that the CSP has any control over MCP servers running in tenant developer environments, prompt-injection attack surface in AI features, or AI-API providers used downstream. The Authority To Operate is treated by procurement as a security guarantee — Pattern 6 (Vendor/Third-Party Risk Theater) recurs at the federal-cloud layer. |
| US DoD | CMMC 2.0 Level 2 (110 NIST 800-171 practices) | Certification-as-evidence pattern. A Level 2 certificate attests to assessor-verified implementation of the 110 practices at the time of assessment. It does not cover AI coding-assistant supply chain, MCP server trust on engineering workstations developing CUI-touching software, or model-update change control. The same Pattern 5 (Change Management Theater) and Pattern 6 (Vendor Management Theater) patterns recur with sharper consequences because CMMC gates DoD contract eligibility. |
| EU NIS2 | Art. 21(2)(c) (vulnerability handling and disclosure) + Art. 21(2)(d) (supply-chain security) | "Appropriate and proportionate" measures language. Member-state transpositions (BSI IT-SiG 2.0, ANSSI, CNIL, ENISA technical guidance) typically pin remediation to CVSS bands with month-scale SLAs. NIS2 does not operationalize CISA-KEV-class urgency, AI-discovery weighting, or MCP/LLM third-party scope. An essential entity can be NIS2-compliant on paper while leaving CVE-2026-31431 and CVE-2026-30615 class exposures unaddressed inside the regulator's expected remediation window. |
| EU DORA | Art. 6 (ICT risk-management framework) + Art. 28 (ICT third-party risk) | Financial-entity ICT risk language scoped to traditional ICT providers and cloud outsourcing. Does not enumerate LLM API providers as ICT third-party service providers requiring the Art. 28 register, contractual safeguards, and exit-strategy obligations. ESAs RTS on subcontracting (JC 2024/53) is silent on MCP servers running inside trading-desk developer environments. Pattern 6 (Vendor Management Theater) recurs cleanly inside a DORA-compliant TPRM programme. |
| EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) | Art. 9 (risk management) + Art. 15 (accuracy, robustness, cybersecurity) for high-risk AI | High-risk AI cybersecurity language refers to "state of the art" without naming prompt injection, model-update change control, or MCP supply chain as scoped attack classes. Conformity assessments under Annex VI/VII can pass on documentation completeness while leaving Pattern 3 (Access Control Theater) and Pattern 5 (Change Management Theater) wide open. Implementing acts and harmonized standards (CEN-CENELEC JTC 21) through 2026-2027 may tighten this. |
| UK NCSC CAF | Principle A2 (Risk Management), B2 (Identity and Access Control), B4 (System Security), D1 (Response and Recovery) | Outcome-based assessment language ("Risks are identified, assessed and understood"; "Access is appropriately controlled"). Outcome language permits theater because the auditor verifies that an outcome statement exists, not that the underlying control disrupts the documented adversary TTP. NCSC's 2024 prompt-injection and AI-supply-chain guidance updates the threat narrative but the CAF outcome statements are unchanged — Patterns 3 / 5 / 6 recur cleanly inside a CAF Level-3 attestation. |
| UK FCA / PRA SS1/21 (Operational Resilience) | Important Business Service tolerance + scenario testing | Operational-resilience scenario testing is principle-based about severe-but-plausible disruptions. CBEST TIBER-EU scenario libraries lag adversary capability 12-18 months and rarely include AI-as-C2 / prompt-injection / MCP-class scenarios. An FCA-attested IBS resilience programme can be "compliant" with zero exercised coverage of Patterns 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7. |
| AU APRA CPS 234 | Para 26 (notification) + Para 27 (information security capability proportional to vulnerabilities and threats) | "Proportional to vulnerabilities and threats" language. APRA quarterly returns and tripartite reviews verify documented capability exists; they do not verify the capability disrupts a current-vintage TTP. CPS 234 attestation can be clean while Patterns 1 / 3 / 5 / 6 / 7 are all present. CPS 230 operational-resilience overlay (effective 2025-07-01) is silent on AI-specific operational scenarios. |
| AU ASD Essential 8 | Patch Applications + Patch Operating Systems + Restrict Administrative Privileges (ML1-ML3) | ML3 48-hour patch window with public exploit is the closest national baseline to adequate for Pattern 1, but the other six strategies (User Application Hardening, Office Macros, Application Control, Daily Backups, MFA, Restrict Admin) do not address Patterns 3 / 5 / 6 / 7 at all. ACSC assessments score the eight strategies; they do not score AI-pipeline integrity or LLM-provider third-party risk. |
| AU Voluntary AI Safety Standard (10 guardrails, 2024) | Guardrails 5 (test and monitor), 7 (transparency), 8 (record-keeping), 10 (stakeholder engagement) | Voluntary, principles-language. Operationally identical to the EU AI Act / UK DSIT AI Cyber Code lag — names the right concerns at the principle layer without testable controls. Patterns 3 / 4 / 5 are unaddressed by current guardrail attestation. |

The pre-analyzed gaps for these controls live in the framework-gap-analysis skill's Built-In Gap Catalog. This skill consumes those gaps and produces a theater detection per gap.

---

## TTP Mapping (MITRE ATLAS v2026.05 and ATT&CK)

Each theater pattern below maps to one or more attacker TTPs in `data/atlas-ttps.json` and MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise. The mapping is what distinguishes theater from genuine compliance: a control claimed as compensating must map to a TTP it actually disrupts.

| Theater pattern | Primary TTPs | Bypass mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Patch Management Theater (Pattern 1) | T1068 (Exploitation for Privilege Escalation), T1203 (Exploitation for Client Execution) | Public PoC + KEV + AI-accelerated weaponization compresses the exploitation window inside the SLA |
| Network Segmentation Theater — IPsec (Pattern 2) | T1190 (Exploit Public-Facing Application) targeting the IPsec kernel subsystem | The control's cryptographic mechanism is the attack surface |
| Access Control Theater — AI Agents (Pattern 3) | AML.T0051 (LLM Prompt Injection), AML.T0054 (LLM Jailbreak), T1059 (Command and Scripting Interpreter) | Authorized service account executes attacker-chosen actions; no identity boundary is crossed |
| Incident Response Theater — AI Pipeline (Pattern 4) | AML.T0020 (Poison Training Data), AML.T0096 (LLM Integration Abuse as C2), AML.T0010 (ML Supply Chain Compromise) | Detection triggers do not exist, so documented IR procedures have no input |
| Change Management Theater — AI Models (Pattern 5) | AML.T0018 (Backdoor ML Model), AML.T0020 | Externally-managed model updates bypass operator change control entirely |
| Vendor/Third-Party Risk Theater — AI APIs (Pattern 6) | AML.T0010 (ML Supply Chain Compromise) | MCP servers and LLM APIs sit outside the vendor-management scope |
| Security Awareness Theater — AI Phishing (Pattern 7) | T1566 (Phishing), AML.T0016 (Obtain Capabilities: Develop Capabilities — misuse of public AI APIs for payload crafting) | AI-generated content evades grammar/style heuristics and template-matching detectors |

Source-of-truth TTP catalog: `data/atlas-ttps.json` (pinned to MITRE ATLAS v2026.05, May 2026). Any theater claim in an assessment must cite at least one TTP ID from that catalog or an ATT&CK Enterprise ID — claims without a mapped TTP are orphaned controls and are rejected.

---

## Exploit Availability Matrix

The theater patterns most acutely under attack today are those backed by high-RWEP entries in `data/cve-catalog.json`. Prioritize remediation of theater flags in this order:

| Theater pattern | Evidence CVE | CVSS | RWEP tier | KEV | Public PoC | AI-accelerated | Live-patchable | Active exploitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patch Management Theater | CVE-2026-31431 (Copy Fail) | High | Critical | Yes | Yes (732 bytes, deterministic) | Yes (AI-discovered) | Yes (kpatch/livepatch) | Confirmed |
| Vendor Management Theater (AI APIs / MCP) | CVE-2026-30615 (Windsurf MCP local-vector RCE) | 8.0 | 35 | No | Partial | No | Yes (IDE update) | Suspected |
| Access Control Theater (AI agents) | CVE-2025-53773 (Copilot YOLO-mode RCE) | 7.8 | 30 | No | Yes (demonstrated) | Yes (AI tooling enables) | Yes (SaaS push / IDE update) | Suspected |
| Network Segmentation Theater (IPsec) | CVE-2026-43284 (Dirty Frag) | High | High | Pending | Partial | No | Limited (subsystem-dependent) | Suspected |
| Patch Management Theater (Bug-Family Sequel) | CVE-2026-46300 (Fragnesia) | 7.8 | 20 (today) / 55+ on KEV | No (candidate) | Yes (one-liner vs /usr/bin/su) | No | Yes (kpatch / canonical-livepatch / KernelCare) | None observed |
| Incident Response Theater (AI pipeline) | SesameOp campaign + AML.T0096 | N/A | High | N/A | ATLAS-documented | Yes | N/A | Confirmed campaign |
| Change Management Theater (AI models) | Continuous provider updates | N/A | Medium | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Ongoing (uncontrolled) |
| Security Awareness Theater (AI phishing) | AI-generated phishing baseline (82.6%) | N/A | High | N/A | Operational | Yes | N/A | Confirmed (industry-wide) |

The first three rows (Critical / Critical / High RWEP with public PoC or active exploitation) are the most dangerous theater patterns to leave un-remediated. Pull authoritative scoring from `data/exploit-availability.json` and `data/cve-catalog.json` before producing the output.

---

## Theater Pattern Library

### Pattern 1: Patch Management Theater

**The claim:** "We have a patch management program. All Critical/High CVEs are remediated within 30 days."

**The audit evidence:** Patch management policy document, ticketing system showing CVEs opened and closed within SLA, vulnerability scanner reports showing declining open vulnerabilities.

**The reality:** CVE-2026-31431 (Copy Fail) was CISA KEV listed on 2026-05-01 with a public 732-byte exploit script (CISA due date 2026-05-15). A 30-day SLA means an organization can be "compliant" while having a public deterministic root exploit unpatched for weeks past the federal due date. During that window: active exploitation confirmed.

**Why it's theater:** The 30-day SLA was designed for environments where weaponization takes weeks. Copy Fail's weaponization time was ~1 hour (AI-discovered and PoC-ready). The control measures compliance with a time window that no longer reflects exploit development reality.

**Detection test:**
```
1. Pull the last 12 months of patch management records
2. Filter for CISA KEV entries
3. For each CISA KEV entry: calculate time from KEV listing date to verified-patched date
4. If any CISA KEV took > 72 hours to patch (or deploy live patch): THEATER FLAG
5. Supplemental: does the organization have live kernel patching deployed? 
   If no: for any system running a production workload, kernel CVEs require a reboot.
   Ask: when was the last kernel reboot on each production system?
   If > 90 days: THEATER FLAG (likely accumulating unpatched kernel CVEs behind the "compliant" SLA)
```

**What a real control looks like:** Tiered SLA: CISA KEV = 4 hours to live-patch or isolate; public PoC = 24 hours; Critical (no public PoC) = 72 hours; High = 7 days. Live patching capability deployed and verified quarterly.

**Bug-family sequel sub-pattern (Fragnesia, CVE-2026-46300):** when a CVE patch lands, retain the pre-patch compensating controls (module blacklists, sysctl restrictions) until the patched code has soaked. The Dirty Frag patch introduced Fragnesia — a sibling page-cache-corruption bug in the same primitive class. The module-unload mitigation (`blacklist esp4 / esp6 / rxrpc`) covers both. A patch-management program that removed the Dirty Frag blacklist when the patch landed re-exposed the host to Fragnesia. Theater signal: a vulnerability scanner that reports "patched for CVE-2026-43284" while the kernel still lacks the CVE-2026-46300 patch and the module blacklist has been removed.

---

### Pattern 2: Network Segmentation Theater (IPsec Edition)

**The claim:** "We have network segmentation between security zones implemented via IPsec tunnels. SC-8 / PCI DSS Req 1 compliant."

**The audit evidence:** Network diagrams showing zone separation, IPsec configuration documentation, firewall rule reviews.

**The reality:** CVE-2026-43284 (Dirty Frag) exploits the IPsec subsystem. An unpatched host cannot use IPsec as a compensating control for Dirty Frag — the IPsec implementation is the attack surface. Network controls that rely on IPsec are providing no isolation guarantee for Dirty Frag-exposed hosts.

**Why it's theater:** The segmentation control is real. The IPsec configuration is correct. The audit evidence is legitimate. But the control's security guarantee fails specifically for the class of vulnerability that uses IPsec as its attack path.

**Detection test:**
```
1. Identify hosts using IPsec for network segmentation compliance
2. Check kernel version: is CVE-2026-43284 patched?
3. If unpatched: the IPsec control is not providing the isolation it claims
4. Note in risk register: "SC-8/PCI Req 1 IPsec segmentation provides no isolation guarantee 
   for CVE-2026-43284-exposed hosts until kernel patch applied."
5. THEATER FLAG: any compliance report that claims IPsec segmentation as a compensating 
   control without noting CVE-2026-43284 patch status
```

---

### Pattern 3: Access Control Theater (AI Agent Edition)

**The claim:** "Our access control program (CC6 / AC-2) ensures all system access is authenticated, authorized, and logged."

**The audit evidence:** IAM configuration reviews, access logs showing authorized accounts, no unauthorized access events, SOC 2 CC6 pass.

**The reality:** AI agent service accounts operate under CC6-compliant access controls. Prompt injection attacks cause the AI agent to take actions using its service account. The actions are authorized from CC6's perspective. The attacker's identity never appears in access logs. The audit evidence is correct and complete — and provides zero signal about the intrusion.

**Why it's theater:** CC6 was designed for human-controlled accounts. AI agents with tool use capabilities create an authorization model where model judgment is the gating mechanism, not traditional access control. Prompt injection bypasses the model's judgment — and therefore bypasses the access control — without triggering any CC6 monitoring.

**Detection test:**
```
1. Ask: does the organization have AI systems (coding assistants, chatbots, agents) with 
   access to production systems, data, or codebases?
2. Ask: are AI agent API calls logged with: (a) full prompt content, (b) tool calls made, 
   (c) correlation to initiating user identity?
3. If (2) is no: the access control has no visibility into the access pattern that 
   prompt injection exploits. THEATER FLAG.
4. Ask: is there a behavioral baseline for what actions an AI agent should take?
   Is there alerting when the agent takes unusual actions (accessing files outside normal scope, 
   calling tools it doesn't normally use, making external network requests)?
5. If no: THEATER FLAG for access control coverage of AI agents
```

---

### Pattern 4: Incident Response Theater (AI Pipeline Edition)

**The claim:** "We have an incident response program (IR-1 through IR-8 / A.5.24-A.5.28) with documented procedures for detecting, responding to, and recovering from security incidents."

**The audit evidence:** IR policy, incident response playbooks, tabletop exercise records, defined roles and responsibilities.

**The reality:** The incident response program covers: malware infection, data breach, DDoS, ransomware, insider threat. It does not cover: model poisoning detected in production, prompt injection attack via AI assistant, AI-as-C2 channel discovered in network traffic, SesameOp-style exfiltration via AI API.

**Why it's theater:** The IR program passes the audit because it meets the framework's requirements for documented procedures and tested response capabilities. Those capabilities are real for traditional incidents. For AI-specific incidents, the detection mechanisms don't exist (so incidents aren't detected) and the response procedures haven't been written (so response is ad-hoc if detection does occur).

**Detection test:**
```
1. Pull the incident response playbook library
2. Search for: "prompt injection", "model poisoning", "AI agent", "LLM", "MCP server"
3. If none found: THEATER FLAG — IR program has no AI-specific procedures
4. Ask: has the organization conducted a tabletop exercise for an AI-specific incident 
   in the last 12 months?
5. Ask: what is the detection mechanism for model poisoning? 
   (Acceptable answers: model behavioral regression testing, output monitoring, 
    model fingerprinting. 
    Unacceptable: "our ML team would notice" or "our AV would catch it")
6. If detection mechanism doesn't exist: the IR procedures for AI incidents are 
   a procedure without a trigger. THEATER FLAG.
```

---

### Pattern 5: Change Management Theater (AI Model Edition)

**The claim:** "All changes to production systems go through our change management process (CM-3 / A.8.32). Changes are reviewed, approved, and documented."

**The audit evidence:** Change management tickets for infrastructure deployments, software releases, configuration changes.

**The reality:** LLM models used by the organization are updated continuously by their providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, etc.). These updates change model behavior, capabilities, and potentially safety properties. They do not go through the organization's change management process because the organization does not control them. Behavioral regressions introduced in model updates are not detected by change management controls.

**Why it's theater:** The change management control is real and functioning. It controls everything the organization actually controls. But the organization's AI systems depend on externally managed components (the LLMs themselves) that change continuously outside the control perimeter.

**Detection test:**
```
1. List all LLM API dependencies (OpenAI, Anthropic Claude, Google Gemini, Azure OpenAI)
2. For each: does a change management ticket get opened when the provider deploys a model update?
3. If no: THEATER FLAG — model updates are uncontrolled changes to production AI systems
4. Ask: is there a behavioral test suite that runs against AI systems after model updates?
   (Tests that would detect if model behavior changed in security-relevant ways)
5. If no: changes to AI system behavior are undetected even if a ticket existed
6. Ask: does the organization pin model versions where the API supports it?
   (e.g., gpt-4o-2024-11-20 instead of gpt-4o)
7. If no: the organization is accepting continuous uncontrolled behavioral changes
```

---

### Pattern 6: Vendor/Third-Party Risk Theater (AI API Edition)

**The claim:** "We have a vendor management program (CC9 / SA-12 / A.5.19). All third-party vendors with access to our systems or data undergo security review."

**The audit evidence:** Vendor security questionnaires, SOC 2 reports for critical vendors, data processing agreements.

**The reality:** AI/LLM APIs (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, etc.) receive organization data in prompts. Developer workstations have MCP servers installed from public npm registries. Neither category typically undergoes the same vendor review as, say, a cloud storage provider — they're treated as SaaS tools, not vendors with data access.

**Why it's theater:** The vendor management program is functional for its intended scope. The scope doesn't include: LLM API providers as data processors for prompt content, MCP server packages as third-party code executing in production environments, AI coding assistants as vendors with access to source code.

**Detection test:**
```
1. List LLM API providers used (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Azure OpenAI, Cohere, etc.)
2. For each: is there a vendor risk assessment? A DPA? A data classification for what goes in prompts?
3. If no DPA for LLM providers handling sensitive data: GDPR/CCPA risk, potential THEATER FLAG
4. List MCP servers installed on developer workstations
5. For each: did it go through vendor security review?
6. If no: the vendor management program has zero coverage for the attack surface where 
   CVE-2026-30615 class vulnerabilities occur. THEATER FLAG.
```

---

### Pattern 7: Security Awareness Theater (AI Phishing Edition)

**The claim:** "We conduct regular security awareness training and phishing simulations. Our click-rate on simulated phishes is < 5%."

**The audit evidence:** Training completion records, phishing simulation results showing < 5% click rate, awareness program documentation.

**The reality:** 82.6% of phishing emails now contain AI-generated content indistinguishable from legitimate emails by grammar/style checks. Traditional phishing simulation content is crafted by humans using templates. A < 5% click rate on human-generated phishing simulations says nothing about resistance to AI-generated highly personalized spear-phishing.

**Why it's theater:** The training and simulation program is real. The click-rate metric is real. But the threat has shifted to AI-generated content that looks nothing like what the simulations train against. The 5% click rate is measured against last generation's phishing, not current generation.

**Detection test:**
```
1. Pull the last 3 phishing simulation reports
2. Ask: were any simulation emails AI-generated (not template-based)?
3. If no: THEATER FLAG — simulations test resistance to 2021 phishing, not 2026 phishing
4. Ask: what are the primary phishing detection signals in the email security gateway?
   Acceptable: sender reputation, link analysis, behavioral signals, sandboxing
   Theater: grammar checks, template matching, "unusual phrasing" rules
5. Ask: is MFA deployed and phishing-resistant (hardware keys, passkeys)?
   SMS/TOTP-protected accounts remain fully vulnerable to AI-generated real-time phishing
   If SMS/TOTP and "we have MFA" is the answer: THEATER FLAG for credential theft resistance
```

---

## Analysis Procedure

### Step 1: Identify scope

Ask for or determine:
- Which compliance framework(s) the organization is auditing against
- Which theater patterns are most relevant to their environment (AI systems? Cloud-native? Critical infrastructure?)
- Recent audit results (what passed)

### Step 2: Run applicable detection tests

For each relevant theater pattern:
1. Run the detection test
2. Record: THEATER FLAG / CLEAR / NEEDS VERIFICATION
3. Note specific evidence that supports the finding

### Step 3: Score theater level

| Theater Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0 flags | Controls appear adequate for current threat reality |
| 1–2 flags | Targeted gaps — specific controls are theater for specific threats |
| 3–4 flags | Systematic theater — control program has structural gaps |
| 5+ flags | Compliance framework mismatch — the framework is not aligned with current threats |

### Step 4: Generate output

---

## Output Format

The skill produces a structured Compliance Theater Assessment that scores each of the seven theater patterns and surfaces the auditor-facing remediation language for any flagged pattern. The shape below is consumed downstream by `policy-exception-gen` (which converts theater flags into defensible exceptions with concrete compensating controls), by `framework-gap-analysis` (which escalates any newly discovered theater pattern into a Framework Lag Declaration), and by `global-grc` (which rolls up theater findings across EU/UK/AU/ISO jurisdictions). Auditor-facing remediation language is the load-bearing field — preserve the wording so corrective-action plans can copy it verbatim.

```
## Compliance Theater Assessment

**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Framework(s):** [in scope]

### Theater Detection Results

| Pattern | Finding | Key Evidence |
|---------|---------|--------------|
| Patch Management | THEATER / CLEAR | [e.g., "CISA KEV average remediation time: 18 days"] |
| Network Segmentation (IPsec) | THEATER / CLEAR | [e.g., "CVE-2026-43284 unpatched on 12 of 40 hosts using IPsec"] |
| Access Control (AI Agents) | THEATER / CLEAR | [e.g., "No prompt-level logging on Copilot deployments"] |
| Incident Response (AI) | THEATER / CLEAR | [e.g., "Zero AI-specific playbooks in IR library"] |
| Change Management (Models) | THEATER / CLEAR | [e.g., "No model version pinning, no behavioral test suite"] |
| Vendor Management (AI APIs) | THEATER / CLEAR | [e.g., "3 LLM providers, 0 vendor risk assessments"] |
| Security Awareness (AI Phishing) | THEATER / CLEAR | [e.g., "Zero AI-generated simulation emails in last 12 months"] |

### Theater Score: [X/7 flags]

### Auditor-Facing Remediation Language
[Per theater flag: specific evidence gap, what a closed gap looks like, 
what a compensating control declaration requires]

### Priority Remediation Roadmap
[Ordered by RWEP impact: most dangerous theater first]
```

---

## Compliance Theater Check

This skill *is* the compliance theater check. The seven pattern tests above produce theater findings; the universal test below is the single question that drives every one of them.

> **For each control the organization claims as compensating, demand the publicly documented attacker TTP that bypasses it, mapped to a specific MITRE ATLAS or ATT&CK ID resolvable in `data/atlas-ttps.json`.**

Decision rule:

- The org names a documented TTP and the control's mechanism does not disrupt it → the compensating-control claim is theater. Record the theater flag with the TTP ID and the bypass mechanism.
- The org cannot name any TTP → the claim is unsubstantiated; treat as theater pending verification. The most common variant is "we have controls that would handle that" where no one has traced the control to a specific bypass mechanism.
- The org names a TTP and the control verifiably disrupts it (e.g., the bypass requires a precondition the control prevents) → the claim is genuine, not theater. Record as CLEAR with the TTP ID as the disrupted technique.

Applied at the level of the seven theater patterns:

| Pattern | Demand this evidence | Theater signal |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Patch Management | Time from CISA KEV listing to verified-patched for last 12 months of KEV entries | Any KEV entry > 72 hours unmitigated |
| 2 Network Segmentation (IPsec) | CVE-2026-43284 patch status on every host whose segmentation evidence cites IPsec | Any unpatched host in the IPsec compliance scope |
| 3 Access Control (AI agents) | Prompt-level logging + behavioral baseline for AI agent tool use | Absence of prompt-level visibility |
| 4 Incident Response (AI) | IR playbook search results for prompt injection / model poisoning / MCP / AI-as-C2 | Zero matches in playbook library |
| 5 Change Management (AI models) | Model version pinning + behavioral regression test suite + provider changelog review cadence | Any of the three missing |
| 6 Vendor Management (AI APIs) | DPA + risk assessment for every LLM provider; vendor review record for every installed MCP server | Any AI provider or MCP server without vendor-management evidence |
| 7 Security Awareness (AI phishing) | AI-generated content proportion in last 3 phishing simulations + phishing-resistant MFA deployment | Zero AI-generated simulation content or SMS/TOTP-only MFA |

The output is consumed by policy-exception-gen (to convert theater flags into defensible exceptions with real compensating controls), framework-gap-analysis (to escalate any newly discovered theater pattern into a Framework Lag Declaration), and global-grc (to roll up theater findings across EU/UK/AU/ISO jurisdictions).

---

## Defensive Countermeasure Mapping

This skill produces theater findings, not control prescriptions. The mapping below routes each of the seven theater patterns to the D3FEND technique that closes the gap, and to the downstream skill that owns the canonical implementation guidance for that technique. Operators converting a theater flag into a remediation plan should consume the cited downstream skill rather than reading the D3FEND ID in isolation — the downstream skill carries the AI-pipeline applicability notes, least-privilege scoping, and zero-trust deployment posture for each technique.

| Theater pattern | Offensive TTP class | D3FEND ID | Defensive technique | Owning downstream skill |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Patch Management (CISA KEV SLA breach) | T1068 (Exploitation for Privilege Escalation) | `D3-KBPI` + `D3-SCA` | Kernel-Based Process Isolation + System Call Analysis | `kernel-lpe-triage` |
| 2 Network Segmentation (IPsec compromised subsystem) | T1190 (Exploit Public-Facing Application) | `D3-NI` | Network Isolation (non-IPsec data path) | `framework-gap-analysis` (SC-8 / SC-28 lag) |
| 3 Access Control (AI agent prompt injection) | AML.T0051 (LLM Prompt Injection) | `D3-IOPR` + `D3-CSPP` | Input/Output Profiling + Client-server Payload Profiling | `ai-attack-surface` |
| 4 Incident Response (AI-specific playbook absence) | AML.T0096 (LLM Integration Abuse — C2), AML.T0051 | `D3-NTA` + `D3-IOPR` | Network Traffic Analysis + Input/Output Profiling | `ai-c2-detection` + `incident-response-playbook` |
| 5 Change Management (Model version drift) | AML.T0018 (Backdoor ML Model), AML.T0020 (Poison Training Data) | `D3-FAPA` + `D3-EFA` | File Access Pattern Analysis + Executable File Analysis | `mlops-security` |
| 6 Vendor Management (AI APIs + MCP servers without DPA) | AML.T0010 (ML Supply Chain Compromise) | `D3-EAL` + `D3-EFA` | Executable Allowlisting + Executable File Analysis | `mcp-agent-trust` + `supply-chain-integrity` |
| 7 Security Awareness (AI-generated phishing absent from simulations) | AML.T0016 (Develop Capabilities — payload generation), T1566 (Phishing) | `D3-MFA` + `D3-CSPP` | Multi-factor Authentication (passkey class) + Client-server Payload Profiling (gateway) | `email-security-anti-phishing` + `identity-assurance` |

**Defense-in-depth posture:** every theater finding produced by this skill must cite the downstream skill that owns the remediation. A theater finding with no routing target is incomplete — the operator receives a gap with no closure path. Where a theater pattern names multiple D3FEND techniques, the downstream skill is the authority on which combinations satisfy defence-in-depth for the operator's environment.

**Least-privilege scope:** the downstream-skill citation is the boundary. This skill does not re-scope D3FEND techniques per principal class — that scoping is owned by the cited downstream skill's own Defensive Countermeasure Mapping section, which is authoritative for principal-class breakdowns (human developer ≠ agent identity ≠ MCP server ≠ model-serving process).

**Zero-trust posture:** a theater flag closes only when the downstream skill's recommended D3FEND technique is deployed, monitored, and tested against the cited offensive TTP — not when a policy document is updated. The Compliance Theater Assessment output (per the Output Format section) must record both the theater finding and the downstream-skill remediation target; auditors converting the finding into a corrective action plan use the downstream skill's verification tests, not this skill's detection tests.

**AI-pipeline applicability:** AI-pipeline degradations for each technique (serverless inference endpoints, ephemeral RAG indices) are documented in the cited downstream skill, not duplicated here. This skill's theater-finding format is unchanged across AI and non-AI pipelines — the AI specificity lives in the routing target.
