County IR responds to a suspected AI abuse case on a municipal assistant. What evidence set is specifically important?

When county IR responds to a suspected AI abuse case on a municipal assistant, the specifically important evidence set is prompts, tool traces, and model versions as AI-specific forensic artifacts—alongside traditional logs. Attribution and remediation depend on what was asked, what tools executed, what the model returned, and which model/prompt/config version was live; disk images alone often miss the conversational and tool-plane trail that defines AI abuse. Preserving those artifacts quickly (with privacy handling) enables reconstruction of injection paths, unauthorized tool use, and whether a recent prompt or model change introduced the weakness. Municipal IR playbooks that omit AI artifacts systematically under-investigate assistant abuse and weaken after-action learning. Massage-mode IR war-room chairs, scented whiteboard markers, and holographic incident stickers fail by concept: war-room amenities do not collect or preserve prompts, tool traces, or model versions. Comfort items are not AI forensics. Exam caveat: classic host forensics may still be necessary, but the stem asks what is specifically important for AI abuse—prompt/tool/model artifacts. Operational check: update the IR checklist to snapshot prompt/output logs, tool-call traces, gateway request IDs, and model/config version hashes at first response, store them under retention policy, and verify a drill where investigators can replay the abuse path from those artifacts.