The Era of the "Sandwich" Tabletop is Over: Why AI Threats Demand Data, Not Vibes

Your Auditors Don'tCare About Your "Vibes." They Want Your Data.

For years, a"successful" tabletop exercise followed a predictable script:everyone showed up to a conference room, ate a sandwich, discussed atheoretical scenario for two hours, and agreed that ransomware is bad.

That era is over.

As we move into alandscape dominated by AI-augmented threats and strict regulatory enforcement,the "discussion-based" simulation is no longer a safety net, it’s a liability.With DORA fully enforceable as of January 2025 and tighter SEC disclosurerules, regulators no longer ask whether you trained. They now ask for proofof resilience.

The Speed Mismatch:Human Bureaucracy vs. Machine Velocity

The fundamentalproblem with traditional risk management is a mismatch of speed. Conventionalframeworks rely on quarterly or annual review cycles. However, the AI augmented threat environment operates atmachine speed with unprecedented adaptability.

While your leadershipteam is scheduling their next quarterly meeting, AI tools allow threat actorsto:

• Automate Reconnaissance: Scanning entire network infrastructures     for vulnerabilities in minutes rather than weeks.
• Accelerate Insider Threats: Exfiltrating or manipulating sensitive     data with tools that obscure the activity.
• Launch Adaptive Attacks: Deploying malware that evolves to evade     detection systems in real-time.

By the time atraditional paper-based process identifies and assesses a new AI risk, thethreat landscape has already changed. If you are still relying on static riskmatrices and discussion-based simulations, you are bringing a notebook to adigital war.

Why Paper ExercisesFail the "Proof" Test

Traditional tabletopexercises (TTXs) generate qualitative insights but completely lack quantitativemetrics on response effectiveness. They produce attendance sheets, not data.

In the past,"feeling prepared" was enough. Today, without measurable data ondecision quality, communication speed, and coordination efficiency,organizations cannot systematically improve their resilience. Furthermore,these static exercises rarely incorporate scenarios involving adversarialmachine learning or AI-generated disinformation, leaving teams blind to thevery threats that are most likely to hit them.

Enter Cinten:Audit-Ready Telemetry

To satisfy the newdemands of DORA and the SEC, organizations must shift from "training"to "telemetry." cinten represents this paradigm shift. Thisdigital platform transforms traditional tabletop exercises into dynamic,data-driven simulations.

We don't justfacilitate a discussion; we track the "math" behind your crisisresponse. cinten produces audit-ready analytics that measure:

1. Decision Latency: How quickly did the team react? We     measure the time between information intake and strategic action.
2. Influence Patterns: Who took control? We analyze interactions     to determine whether the right voices are being heard or whether silos are     blocking critical intel.
3. Stress Metrics & Performance: Where did the team break down? We provide     quantifiable metrics on response effectiveness as the scenario unfolds.

This approach builds"muscle memory" that reduces decision latency during actual crises. Itensures that when a real AI-driven attack occurs, your team can processinformation and coordinate responses at the accelerated pace the incidentdemands.

The Bottom Line

The philosophical andtactical risks of AI are reshaping industries. Your crisis preparedness mustevolve to keep pace with them.

Regulators are lookingfor empirical evidence that your organization can withstand a digital siege. Asign-in sheet from a lunch-and-learn won't cut it.

Don't just checkthe box. Show the math.

‍