Built so your architects nod, not frown.

No. Bridge is an interaction and orchestration layer on top of your existing SAP. Your processes, your customizing and your data stay exactly where they are - Bridge makes them conversational.

Inside your own Microsoft tenant, delivered through Microsoft 365 Copilot. There is no Bridge cloud and no separate environment to trust - the only processor involved is Microsoft, under your existing agreements.

No. Bridge holds no data of its own - nothing is copied or stored in between. It reads through released SAP standard services at the moment of the question.

Twice. Microsoft permissions govern the workplace side, and every SAP access runs through the user's own SAP account - nobody sees a single record beyond what their existing SAP authorizations already allow.

Never the system. A deterministic dispatcher routes every request to a curated catalog of released, vetted SAP functions. The AI can only use what has been explicitly released - free-form system access does not exist in this architecture.

Bridge is delivered through Microsoft 365 Copilot, so AI processing follows your Microsoft 365 environment and the agreements you already have with Microsoft. Customer data is not used to train models.

Bridge starts read-only. Write actions are planned for later phases and get released explicitly, function by function, under your governance - with the human in the decision. Every access is logged: who asked, which function ran, what was retrieved, what was proposed.

Through released SAP standard services on ECC and S/4HANA - base connectivity via the Microsoft On-Premises Data Gateway, Azure API Management or SAP BTP. No modification of your SAP core, no parallel data copy to maintain.

By design. The principles SAP has published for responsible AI - proportionality, human oversight, transparency, privacy, accountability - map directly onto how Bridge is built: read-only, a deterministic dispatcher instead of free system access, documented data sources, and answers that can be traced function by function. One honest note: alignment with published principles is an engineering and governance discipline, not a certificate anyone can hand out - so we treat it as a release gate for every rollout, not as a slogan.

No. Bridge reads, explains and flags. Where it screens documents - say, incoming invoices - anything suspicious is routed to a human for review; nothing is blocked, rejected or scored automatically. Functions that would evaluate people, such as ratings, rankings or profiling, are not part of the product - and would only ever be considered after a separate, documented risk review.

It sees a curated catalog, nothing more. The runtime works exclusively with released services, entities and fields - described in business terms, versioned and reviewed. Credentials, tokens, hostnames, gateway details and system-landscape information are never part of the AI's context; they live in separated, secured configuration. End users get business language in their answers; the full technical view stays with your administrators and auditors.

Every answer has a trace: which released function ran, which fields and filters were used, under which limits - with correlation IDs across the stack. Users see a business-language explanation and always know they are interacting with an AI; your auditors see the full technical trail. Explainability isn't an add-on here - the dispatcher architecture produces it as a by-product.

A readiness check with real gates, not a switch-flip: data protection review and data classification, the permissions concept, a documented human-oversight process, and a written list of released - and deliberately excluded - use cases. Only reviewed scope goes live; everything else stays off until it has passed the same gate. We would rather pass your toughest review than talk our way around it.