> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://handbook.harmonic.security/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://handbook.harmonic.security/handbook/6.-observability-audit-and-evidence/6.3-compliance-apis-by-platform.md). # 6.3 Compliance APIs by platform The programmatic audit endpoint per vendor, what each one returns, and exactly where each one stops. *Last reviewed: August 18, 2026* {% hint style="info" %} Compliance APIs are evidence sources, not complete visibility. Know the endpoint, the retention window, and the missing surfaces before an incident. {% endhint %} ## Compliance APIs by platform: what security teams need to know AI compliance APIs can export audit logs, conversations, files, or activity records depending on the vendor and plan. They are useful for investigations, eDiscovery, and control evidence. The mistake is treating a compliance API as complete coverage. API-key automation, desktop control, browser automation, connectors, or new agent features may have separate evidence paths. ## Common compliance APIs by platform security failures * The endpoint is enabled after an incident rather than before. * Exports omit the surface involved in the workflow. * The team lacks permission to request or retrieve data quickly. * Prompt content is exported without redaction planning. * Records are not correlated with connector and endpoint logs. ## Compliance APIs by platform security controls checklist * Document endpoint, plan requirement, fields, retention, limits, and owner. * Test exports during pilot with known activity. * Correlate compliance exports with SIEM, endpoint, SaaS, and network logs. * Protect exported content as sensitive evidence. * Keep a source gap list for surfaces the API does not cover. ## Anthropic ### Overview Anthropic exposes several distinct evidence paths rather than one export. Claude for Enterprise includes a Compliance API for supported workspace activity. Anthropic explicitly excludes Cowork activity from audit logs, the Compliance API, and data exports. Team and Enterprise customers can stream Cowork events through OpenTelemetry instead. Claude's Microsoft 365 add-ins are also outside the Compliance API and data exports, with a separate Office-agent OpenTelemetry path. Claude Code cloud execution provides audit logging in isolated VMs, local Claude Code depends on OpenTelemetry and endpoint evidence, and Managed Agents expose session events and webhooks. Managed Agents is in beta and sessions are not currently eligible for zero data retention or HIPAA BAA coverage. Console/API retention behavior, including zero-data-retention options, is documented separately. Claude Tag should be mapped as a separate evidence plane, not assumed to flow through the Enterprise Compliance API. Its Audit view covers routines, memory, and optional Agent Proxy network events, while action attribution appears in Slack and each connected service. Preserve those records and document the gap: there is no per-action Claude Tag audit row for every task and requester. ### Anthropic documentation * [Claude Code authentication](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/team) * [Claude Code security](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/security) * [Claude Code data usage](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/data-usage) * [Claude Managed Agents overview](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/managed-agents/overview) * [API and data retention](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/manage-claude/api-and-data-retention) * [Claude Cowork architecture overview](https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14479288-claude-cowork-architecture-overview) * [Monitor Claude Cowork activity with OpenTelemetry](https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14477985-monitor-claude-cowork-activity-with-opentelemetry) * [Work across Microsoft 365 apps with Claude](https://support.claude.com/en/articles/13892150-work-across-microsoft-365-apps) * [Configure OpenTelemetry for Claude's Office agents](https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14447276-configure-a-custom-opentelemetry-collector-for-office-agents) * [Access the Compliance API](https://support.claude.com/en/articles/13015708-access-the-compliance-api) * [Access audit logs](https://support.claude.com/en/articles/9970975-access-audit-logs) * [Review what Claude Tag has done](https://claude.com/docs/claude-tag/admins/audit) ### Applicable Harmonic guides for Anthropic * [Securing Claude Cowork: A Security Practitioner's Guide](https://www.harmonic.security/resources/securing-claude-cowork-a-security-practitioners-guide) ## OpenAI ### Overview OpenAI's Enterprise Compliance API covers user messages and responses across Chat, Work, and Codex. The broader ChatGPT API also exposes workspace conversations, GPTs, users, and workspace memories, with documented read and delete permissions. Coverage stops short of complete agent telemetry: OpenAI says Work files, actions, and tool calls are not tracked in the Compliance API or the 30-day Compliance Logs Platform. Canvas events are also not yet supported. The Codex Compliance API covers ChatGPT-authenticated Codex activity only; API-key-authenticated usage follows API organization settings and does not appear in Compliance API exports. Work on the web and mobile runs in the cloud, while Work and Codex on desktop can act on local files and apps. Those local actions need Codex telemetry, endpoint evidence, and downstream system logs. ChatGPT Atlas is scheduled to retire on August 9, 2026, so organizations should preserve any required Atlas evidence while migrating. ### OpenAI documentation * [Compliance APIs for Enterprise Customers](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/9261474-compliance-apis-for-enterprise-customers) * [Codex governance](https://developers.openai.com/codex/enterprise/governance) * [Chat and File Retention Policies in ChatGPT](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/8983778-chat-and-file-retention-policies-in-chatgpt) * [Work Admin FAQ](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/enterprise/work-admin-faq) * [ChatGPT release notes](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6825453-chatgpt-release-notes) * [Data controls in the OpenAI platform](https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/your-data) ### Applicable Harmonic guides for OpenAI * [Securing ChatGPT Enterprise Guide](https://www.harmonic.security/resources/securing-chatgpt-enterprise-guide) ## Reference table: compliance APIs by platform This table summarizes the documented endpoints as of the last review date. Verify plan requirements and coverage against current vendor documentation before relying on a row. | Platform | API or export | Plan requirement | Coverage | Documented exclusions and caveats | | ----------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Claude chat (web, desktop, mobile) | Claude for Enterprise Compliance API | Claude for Enterprise | Supported workspace evidence for enterprise oversight | Verify individual event types; downstream SaaS activity needs its own evidence | | Claude Cowork | OpenTelemetry | Team and Enterprise | Prompts, tool and MCP calls, file access, skills, plugins, approvals, errors | Not in audit logs, Compliance API, or data exports; remote execution is invisible to endpoint detection tools | | Claude for Excel, PowerPoint, Word, and Outlook | Office-agent OpenTelemetry plus Microsoft 365 logs | Eligible Claude and Microsoft 365 plans | Prompts, tools, file references, user identity, and downstream Office activity | Not in Anthropic audit logs, Compliance API, or data exports; custom retention does not apply to add-in inputs and outputs | | Claude Code (cloud execution) | Cloud execution audit logging | Cloud execution environment | Isolated-VM runs with scoped credentials | Local runs depend on OpenTelemetry monitoring and endpoint evidence | | Claude Managed Agents | Session event streams and webhooks | Beta (managed-agents header required) | Session and event history for agent runs | Sessions persist server-side; not currently ZDR- or HIPAA-BAA-eligible | | ChatGPT Chat and Work | Enterprise Compliance API | Enterprise only | User messages and responses across Chat and Work; broader workspace conversation and GPT records | Work files, actions, and tool calls are not tracked; canvas events are not yet supported | | Codex | Codex Compliance API and governance exports | Codex Enterprise | ChatGPT-authenticated Codex activity records | API-key-authenticated Codex usage excluded; it follows API organization settings | | ChatGPT Atlas, until retirement | None | Not applicable | Not applicable | No Compliance API feed; scheduled to retire August 9, 2026 | ## Frequently asked questions about compliance APIs by platform ### What is a compliance API for AI platforms? It is a vendor endpoint that exports audit, activity, conversation, or file records for eDiscovery, DLP, and SIEM integration. The ChatGPT Enterprise Compliance API and the Claude for Enterprise Compliance API are the main examples, and Codex Enterprise adds a coding-agent path. Every endpoint has exclusions. Anthropic excludes Cowork and Office-agent activity, while OpenAI excludes Work files, actions, and tool calls. ### Do compliance APIs show every AI action? No. Coverage varies by product surface, plan, and authentication path. Cowork and Claude's Office agents require OpenTelemetry rather than the Compliance API. OpenAI Work messages are covered, but files, actions, and tool calls are not. Codex excludes API-key automation. Keep a written gap list next to the endpoint documentation. ### What should be tested before rollout? Run known activity through the pilot workflow and confirm which parts appear: users, prompts, files, tools, approvals, and downstream actions. A successful conversation export does not prove that the file or tool call was captured. Test the delete path too if you plan to rely on it, and time retrieval with the permissions responders actually hold. ### How should exports be protected? Treat them as sensitive evidence, because they can contain full prompts, files, outputs, memories, and personal data. Restrict access to the compliance integration credentials, store exports in a controlled evidence system rather than a broad log index, and apply your existing eDiscovery handling rules. ### What should be documented? Document endpoint, owner, plan requirement, access process, fields, retention, blind spots, and the investigation playbook that uses each source. The reference table on this page is a starting skeleton; keep your copy dated, because vendor coverage changes. ## Applicable regulations and frameworks | Governance page | Relationship to this article | | --------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | G.1 Map your controls to NIST AI RMF and CSF 2.0 | This article supplies implementation evidence for the NIST AI RMF and matching NIST CSF 2.0 outcomes. | | G.2 EU AI Act obligations for deployers | Conditional: for an in-scope high-risk system, this supports access to platform logs and compliance evidence. | | G.3 DORA and AI resilience in financial services | Conditional: for a DORA-regulated workflow, this supports monitoring, investigation, audit evidence, and incident reporting. | | G.6 Write an AI Acceptable Use Policy that holds up | This article supplies a technical or process control used to enforce the acceptable-use policy. | | G.7 Ownership and RACI for AI security | This control depends on the ownership and evidence responsibilities defined in the RACI. | | G.9 HIPAA controls for AI systems handling PHI | Conditional: for a workflow handling ePHI, this supports HIPAA audit controls, activity review, and investigation evidence. | *G.2, G.3, G.4, and G.9 are conditional mappings. They apply only when the deployment is within the legal or regulatory scope described on the linked governance page.* ## Related handbook guidance * [6. Observability, Audit & Evidence](/handbook/6.-observability-audit-and-evidence.md) * [6.2 OpenTelemetry for AI runtime visibility](/handbook/6.-observability-audit-and-evidence/6.2-opentelemetry-for-ai-runtime-visibility.md) * [6.5 Routing AI telemetry to your SIEM](/handbook/6.-observability-audit-and-evidence/6.5-routing-ai-telemetry-to-your-siem.md) * [4.4 Retention and Zero Data Retention](/handbook/4.-data-protection-and-residency/4.4-retention-and-zero-data-retention.md) * [6.6 Evidence by surface and investigation paths](/handbook/6.-observability-audit-and-evidence/6.6-evidence-by-surface-and-investigation-paths.md) --- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter: ``` GET https://handbook.harmonic.security/handbook/6.-observability-audit-and-evidence/6.3-compliance-apis-by-platform.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.