AI Incident Response in 2026: The Playbook for LLM Failures in Production

TL;DR

• AI incidents differ from traditional software incidents—they’re often behavioral, gradual, and hard to detect with standard monitoring.
• Define incident categories: security misuse (prompt injection), safety violations (toxic outputs), reliability issues (hallucinations), and privacy violations.
• Implement graduated controls instead of a single kill switch: traffic shedding → circuit breaker → scoped stop → global stop.
• For high-risk domains (healthcare, finance), default to fail-closed approaches—disable AI features rather than serve bad outputs.
• Success depends on precommitment: clearly articulated playbooks, pre-wired controls, and practiced cross-functional response.
• Red teaming and tabletop exercises build muscle memory for incidents before they happen.
• Post-incident reviews are mandatory—AI incidents reveal systemic issues, not just one-time bugs.

---

What Makes AI Incidents Different

Traditional software incidents are typically binary: the system works or it doesn’t. A server crashes, a database times out, an API returns errors. You detect them through metrics, fix the underlying issue, and restore service.

AI incidents are fundamentally different:

Characteristic	Traditional Incident	AI Incident
Detection	Metrics-based (error rates, latency)	Often behavioral, requires output analysis
Failure mode	Binary (works/doesn’t work)	Gradual degradation, subtle wrongness
Root cause	Code bug, infrastructure issue	Model behavior, prompt injection, distribution shift
Reproduction	Consistent with same inputs	May be non-deterministic, context-dependent
Fix	Code deploy, config change	Model update, guardrail addition, prompt change

This means your traditional incident response playbooks are necessary but insufficient for AI systems.

AI Incident Categories

1. Security Misuse

Examples:

• Prompt injection causing unintended actions
• Data exfiltration through model outputs
• Jailbreaking that bypasses safety filters
• Unauthorized access through AI interfaces

Detection signals:

• Unusual prompt patterns (encoded instructions, role-playing attacks)
• Model accessing data it shouldn’t
• Outputs containing system instructions or sensitive data
• Sudden changes in model behavior patterns

2. Safety and Ethics Violations

Examples:

• Toxic, harmful, or inappropriate outputs
• Hallucinations presented as fact
• Bias amplification in decisions
• Privacy violations (revealing personal information)

Detection signals:

• Content filter triggers
• User reports of inappropriate responses
• Output quality monitoring alerts
• Audit log anomalies

3. Reliability Issues

Examples:

• Extreme hallucination rates
• Consistent reasoning errors
• Format violations breaking downstream systems
• Performance degradation

Detection signals:

• Output validation failures
• User satisfaction drops
• Downstream error rates
• Response latency increases

4. Data and Privacy Violations

Examples:

• Training data leakage in outputs
• PII exposure
• Confidential information disclosure
• GDPR/CCPA violations

Detection signals:

• PII detection in outputs
• Audit alerts for data access
• User reports of information disclosure
• Regex patterns for sensitive data

The Graduated Response Model

Rather than a single “kill switch,” implement a spectrum of controls:

Level 1: Traffic Shedding

Action: Throttle AI requests, queue for human verification Impact: Reduced throughput, increased latency Use when: Suspicious patterns detected, not confirmed incident

if suspicious_pattern_detected:
    route_to_verification_queue(request)
    alert_on_call_team()

Level 2: Circuit Breaker

Action: Automatically route to safe fallback when error thresholds exceeded Impact: Degraded functionality, deterministic fallback Use when: Error rate exceeds threshold (e.g., >5% failures)

if error_rate > threshold:
    activate_circuit_breaker()
    serve_fallback_response()
    alert_with_severity_high()

Level 3: Graceful Degradation

Action: Switch to simpler models, deterministic templates, or narrow-scope AI Impact: Reduced capability, maintained safety Use when: Model reliability compromised, need to maintain service

if model_reliability_compromised:
    switch_to_rule_based_fallback()
    notify_users_of_reduced_functionality()

Level 4: Shadow Mode

Action: Run model offline for diagnosis while serving safe alternatives Impact: No AI functionality, users get fallback Use when: Active investigation, need to debug without user impact

if active_investigation:
    route_production_traffic_to_fallback()
    mirror_requests_to_shadow_model()
    log_all_shadow_outputs_for_analysis()

Level 5: Scoped Stop

Action: Disable AI feature for specific tenant, geography, or component Impact: Partial outage, contained blast radius Use when: Incident isolated to specific segment

if incident_isolated_to_segment:
    disable_ai_for_segment(segment_id)
    maintain_service_for_unaffected()

Level 6: Global Stop

Action: Disable AI feature entirely across all users Impact: Complete feature outage Use when: Widespread issue, high severity, safety risk

if severity == critical and scope == global:
    disable_ai_globally()
    serve_maintenance_message()
    all_hands_response()

Building the Playbook

Pre-Incident Preparation

1. Inventory your AI components:

• Foundation models used
• Custom models and fine-tunes
• Guardrails and filters
• Agents and tools
• Knowledge bases and RAG systems
• Training data sources

2. Define severity levels:

Severity	Definition	Response Time	Example
P0	Safety risk, data breach, or widespread harm	15 minutes	Model leaking PII
P1	Significant quality degradation, user impact	1 hour	High hallucination rate
P2	Isolated issues, limited impact	4 hours	Single-user jailbreak
P3	Minor issues, monitoring needed	24 hours	Unusual prompt patterns

3. Create response runbooks:

For each severity level, document:

• Who to alert (on-call rotation, escalation path)
• Initial diagnostic steps
• Available containment actions
• Communication templates
• Recovery procedures

Detection Systems

Output monitoring:

• Content classifiers for toxicity, PII, sensitive topics
• Format validators for structured outputs
• Factuality checks against known sources
• Semantic similarity to expected outputs

Behavioral monitoring:

• Prompt pattern analysis
• User interaction anomalies
• Model latency and error rates
• Token usage patterns

User feedback loops:

• Easy-to-use report mechanisms
• Thumbs down tracking
• Explicit safety reports
• Support ticket analysis

Response Workflow

INCIDENT DETECTED
       │
       ▼
┌─────────────────┐
│ ASSESS SEVERITY │
│ P0/P1/P2/P3     │
└─────────────────┘
       │
       ▼
┌─────────────────┐
│ CONTAIN         │
│ Apply controls  │
│ Limit blast     │
└─────────────────┘
       │
       ▼
┌─────────────────┐
│ COMMUNICATE     │
│ Stakeholders    │
│ Users (if needed)│
└─────────────────┘
       │
       ▼
┌─────────────────┐
│ INVESTIGATE     │
│ Root cause      │
│ Document        │
└─────────────────┘
       │
       ▼
┌─────────────────┐
│ REMEDIATE       │
│ Fix issue       │
│ Verify          │
└─────────────────┘
       │
       ▼
┌─────────────────┐
│ RECOVER         │
│ Restore service │
│ Monitor         │
└─────────────────┘
       │
       ▼
┌─────────────────┐
│ REVIEW          │
│ Post-incident   │
│ Improve         │
└─────────────────┘

Tabletop Exercises

Build response muscle memory through simulated incidents:

Exercise Format

1. Scenario presentation (5 minutes)

   • “It’s Tuesday 3pm. Your support team reports users complaining that the AI assistant is providing medical advice it shouldn’t be giving.”

2. Initial response (15 minutes)

   • Who notices first?
   • How do they escalate?
   • What’s the first containment action?

3. Investigation (15 minutes)

   • What logs do you check?
   • How do you reproduce?
   • What’s the scope assessment?

4. Resolution (10 minutes)

   • What’s the fix?
   • How do you verify?
   • When do you restore?

5. Debrief (15 minutes)

   • What went well?
   • What gaps emerged?
   • What do we need to change?

Sample Scenarios

Scenario	Category	Complexity
Model outputs customer PII in responses	Privacy	Medium
Prompt injection causes SQL query in output	Security	High
10x increase in hallucination rate after model update	Reliability	Medium
Bias detected in hiring recommendation system	Ethics	High
Model refuses all requests after guardrail update	Reliability	Low
Coordinated jailbreak attack on social media	Security	High

Implementation Checklist

Preparation

• Inventory all AI components and dependencies
• Define severity levels and response times
• Create runbooks for each severity level
• Establish on-call rotation for AI incidents
• Implement graduated control mechanisms
• Set up output monitoring and detection
• Create communication templates

Detection

• Deploy content classifiers for outputs
• Implement PII detection
• Set up behavioral anomaly detection
• Create user feedback mechanisms
• Define alerting thresholds
• Establish monitoring dashboards

Response

• Document escalation paths
• Pre-wire containment controls
• Test circuit breakers and fallbacks
• Run tabletop exercises quarterly
• Establish incident communication channels
• Create post-incident review template

FAQ

How is AI incident response different from regular SRE?

AI incidents require behavioral analysis, not just metrics. You need to understand what the model is saying, not just whether it’s responding. Traditional SRE skills apply, but AI-specific detection and remediation are necessary.

When should we kill the feature entirely?

When there’s any risk to user safety, privacy violations, or potential legal exposure. For high-stakes domains (healthcare, finance, legal), default to fail-closed—it’s better to lose functionality than to cause harm.

How do we balance availability and safety?

Define your risk tolerance ahead of time. For low-stakes applications (content suggestions), prioritize availability. For high-stakes (medical advice, financial decisions), prioritize safety. The worst time to make this decision is during an incident.

How often should we run tabletop exercises?

Quarterly for major scenarios, monthly for mini-exercises. After any significant AI system change, run a targeted exercise for that component.

What should the post-incident review cover?

Timeline of events, what was detected and how, what containment worked, root cause analysis, and systematic improvements. AI incidents often reveal gaps in monitoring or guardrails that apply beyond the specific incident.

Who should be on the AI incident response team?

At minimum: engineering (model and infrastructure), product (user impact assessment), legal/compliance (for privacy/safety), and communications (for external messaging). Train this cross-functional group together.

Sources & Further Reading

• AI Incident Response & Kill-Switch Playbooks — Graduated control framework
• AWS: Incident Response for GenAI Workloads — AWS methodology
• Practical Incident-Response Framework for GenAI — Academic framework
• Incident Response for LLM Safety Failures — Safety-focused approach
• LLM Red Teaming Playbook — Prevention through testing
• Agent Observability — Related: monitoring AI systems
• LLM Guardrails — Related: preventive controls