Municipal courts identify compliance risks and recommendations before a Copilot go-live. Which Purview experience supports that review?

Before Copilot go-live, municipal courts should use Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager to surface compliance risks and recommended improvement actions. That Purview experience is purpose-built to assess the tenant against selected frameworks and list concrete improvements, giving courts a structured pre-launch review of compliance posture rather than an ad-hoc checklist of cosmetic Microsoft 365 settings.

Microsoft Purview eDiscovery fails as a pre-go-live compliance risk review: it searches and collects content for legal investigations, not framework-based risk assessment and improvement actions. Microsoft Purview Audit fails as a Copilot go-live risk assessment: it reviews user and admin activity logs, it does not assess the tenant against compliance frameworks or list recommended improvement actions. Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention fails as a compliance control catalog for this review: it limits oversharing of sensitive records, it does not enumerate framework-based improvement actions for a pre-launch posture review.

Exam caveat: AB-900 wants you to identify Compliance Manager as the experience for compliance risks and recommended improvements. Nearby scores (for example Identity Secure Score) address related but different postures; do not conflate them when the stem asks for the Purview compliance-risk review before Copilot go-live.

Operational check: Run or refresh the relevant Compliance Manager assessment for the courts tenant, export or review open improvement actions with court IT and compliance owners, and document residual risks accepted before enabling Copilot for judicial or clerk workloads.