County clerks use AI productivity tools. Which monitoring practice best ties identity risk to AI use?

Correlating identity risk signals with unusual AI tool usage by county clerks ties identity risk to AI use: a risky login plus anomalous prompting or data exfiltration patterns is one incident story, not two unrelated tickets. The correct monitoring practice works because identity providers and AI gateways each see partial truth; correlation detects compromised accounts using AI tools for bulk extraction, policy bypass, or reconnaissance. Tying identity risk signals to periodic AI tool access reviews for clerks fails conceptually because periodic reviews validate entitlements at intervals rather than continuously correlating live identity risk with unusual AI tool behavior for detection. Mapping identity risk signals to approved AI tool inventory lists for clerks fails because it maintains a static governance list of allowed tools rather than linking unusual AI usage to identity risk or compromised clerk sessions. Filing identity risk signals with routine AI tool billing records for clerks fails because it stores risk context with financial records rather than tying a clerk's identity risk to anomalous AI tool use for timely response. Exam caveat: correlation rules need privacy-aware handling of clerk activity logs and clear investigation playbooks so monitoring does not become unchecked workplace surveillance beyond security purpose. Operational check: feed IdP risk scores and AI gateway usage into a correlated detection use case, alert on high identity risk plus anomalous AI behavior, require investigated response, and tune baselines per role so clerks' normal productivity patterns do not flood false positives.