Not another raw-log search UI
Search, dashboards, SIEM, APM, and analytics remain jobs for the customer's existing observability stack.
CerbiShield DashboardCurrent release-preview UI
Read the governance lifecyclein the product.
CerbiShield should answer operational questions in sequence: what is the posture, where is policy active, what violated it, what evidence remains, and where can AI telemetry create logging risk? These are real product captures, not reconstructed marketing UI.
01Operate
Question
Where does governance need attention?
Start from policy coverage, enforcement posture, governed activity, workload risk, deployment signal, and readiness. The operating surface should make the next governance decision visible without turning CerbiShield into another raw-log viewer.
What this surface proves
Posture and coverage
Enforcement state
Governed activity
Platform readiness
CerbiShield / Governance Command CenterActual product UI
02Verify
Question
Where is policy actually enforced?
Make the enforcement boundary explicit. The Gateway surface connects applications and OTLP traffic to Cerbi policy and the existing observability destination so a platform team can explain the data path without reverse-engineering collector configuration.
What this surface proves
Applications and workloads
Gateway boundary
Policy relationship
Existing observability
CerbiShield / Gateway traffic pathActual product UI
03Investigate
Question
What violated policy, and where?
Move from severity and trend into workload, rule, field, and time-window context. The useful transition is from governance posture to a concrete remediation target, not from one score to another dashboard score.
What this surface proves
Severity and rate
Top policy failures
Trend context
Workload drill-down
CerbiShield / Violations ExplorerActual product UI
04Prove
Question
What record supports the control afterward?
Keep policy versions, hashes, coverage, violations, deployments, exceptions, and audit context tied to the governance program. Evidence should be a normal operating output, not a manual reconstruction performed only when a review begins.
What this surface proves
Policy versions and hashes
Coverage and violations
Deployment context
Exceptions and audit
CerbiShield / Evidence CenterActual product UI
05AI Logging
Question
Where can AI telemetry become logging risk?
Review AI-related telemetry posture without turning on the Cerbi AI assistant. The Pro++ AI Logging Governance path keeps raw prompt and response storage off by default, surfaces metadata-first scanner and runtime signals, and ties policy, digest, and baseline context into evidence.
What this surface proves
Separate deployment flag
Raw payloads off by default
Observed AI systems
Scanner and runtime evidence
CerbiShield / AI Logging GovernanceActual product UI
What the Dashboard deliberately is not.
Not the telemetry enforcement process itself
CerbiStream and Gateway execute governance at the selected runtime boundary; CerbiShield owns the operating model around it.
Not an AI dependency
AI can assist bounded workflows, but core policy, enforcement, deployment, audit, and evidence are not dependent on generative AI.
Not a compliance certification
Evidence and audit features support governance review and compliance work; they do not convert the product into a certification or legal conclusion.
Use the product to prove the architecture
Take one workload from policy to evidence.
The useful walkthrough is not a feature tour. Choose one logging risk, select Stream or Gateway, activate one control, verify the downstream result, then review the resulting evidence.