Rethinking Cloud SLAs: XLAs, KRIs and OKRs for resilient governance

Cloud service contracts that promise “five 9s” of availability are no longer a safe proxy for business resilience — and that mismatch has moved from an operational nuisance to a strategic risk that can derail transformation, compliance and even corporate reputations.

Background​

As organisations pour budget and workloads into public cloud platforms, the legal and operational instruments that once governed outsourcing — notably Service Level Agreements (SLAs) — are proving blunt and incomplete. Recent industry commentary and practitioner guidance argue that SLAs still emphasise narrow infrastructure metrics (uptime percentages, error-rate thresholds, support-response times) while failing to capture performance, user experience, regulatory obligations, and the emergent risks of generative AI and rapid shadow-IT adoption. This gap is being framed not simply as a contractual problem but as a strategic governance challenge that crosses procurement, security, architecture and executive leadership.
Gartner’s market forecast pressures this point: global public cloud spending is forecast to reach roughly US$723 billion in 2025, a reminder that the scale of what sits behind SLAs is enormous and rising.

---

Why SLAs are showing their age​

The original intent — and current limits — of SLAs​

SLAs were designed as contractual guardrails: explicit promises about infrastructure availability, incident escalation timelines, and financial remedies (credits) if those promises aren’t met. They work well when services are simple, static and vertically integrated.
But modern cloud use-cases are rarely simple. Organisations now stitch microservices, third‑party APIs, edge nodes, serverless functions, generative AI endpoints and SaaS portals into business processes. That tapestry creates new modes of failure — degraded latency, inconsistent inference quality, data-flow ambiguities and cross‑provider egress complexities — none of which are captured by a headline uptime metric. Computer Weekly’s practitioner analysis highlights how CTOs and CISOs increasingly view SLA shortfalls as signals that governance, architecture and measurement must evolve rather than as blocking items to adoption.

Three concrete SLA failure modes to watch​

• Narrow scope: SLAs often cover infrastructure availability but exclude performance degradation (latency/jitter) and quality of AI outputs, leaving customers exposed when services are “up but unusable.”
• Shared-responsibility confusion: Many organisations assume providers handle more than they do, creating a responsibility gap for security, data governance and breach response.
• Physical-layer blind spots: Cloud’s logical redundancy can mask physical chokepoints (subsea cables, carrier transit) that produce regional performance collapses — phenomena SLAs don’t normally remedy.

---

A pragmatic toolkit: XLAs, KRIs, OKRs and when to walk away​

The debate is no longer “SLA or no SLA.” The working consensus among practitioners is that SLAs remain necessary but insufficient. A layered approach is needed — one that maps technical signals to business outcomes and gives leaders actionable governance levers.

Experience Level Agreements (XLAs): measuring outcomes, not just outputs​

An Experience Level Agreement (XLA) focuses on user experience and business outcomes rather than purely technical thresholds. XLAs combine digital-experience monitoring (DEM), sentiment and outcome metrics (e.g., task success rate, time‑to‑value, post‑interaction CSAT) so organisations can determine whether a service actually enables the business, not just whether it’s technically available. Gartner and industry practitioners recommend XLAs as a complement to SLAs — not a replacement — to close the “watermelon effect” (green SLA metrics masking poor user experience).
Practical XLA elements:

• User-centric KPIs: post‑task CSAT, throughput, error-prone transaction rate.
• Telemetry linked to business process flows: trace latency from client to COTS AI model and measure task completion time.
• Continuous feedback: embed micro‑surveys and automated sentiment scores to convert qualitative experience into quantitative triggers.

Key Risk Indicators (KRIs): anticipating covenant-busting events​

KRIs operationalise vendor and architectural risk into dashboards executives can act on. Effective KRIs include:

• Percentage of business-critical requests transiting a single physical corridor (subsea-cable dependency).
• Proportion of AI inferences sent to third‑party endpoints without contractual data-handling guarantees.
• Volume of sensitive files accessible to unmanaged Copilot-like assistants.

These indicators make SLA shortcomings visible to risk committees and compliance teams long before incidents escalate. Industry analysis and incident post-mortems consistently call for KRI integration into vendor‑risk workflows.

OKRs and commercial levers: tie tech metrics to executive outcomes​

Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) give leaders a mechanism to align engineering targets with business outcomes. Example:

• Objective: “Deliver a reliable, compliant AI‑assisted claims process.”
  Key results: Maintain 00ms median inference latency for 95% of transactions; ensure 100% of models handling PII are hosted in contractually auditable environments.

Procurement must couple these measures with contract clauses (audit rights, data‑handling SLAs, route-diversity commitments) and be prepared to demand bespoke terms for mission‑critical services. When a provider cannot contractually meet those terms, strategic withdrawal or hybrid re‑hosting are legitimate options.

---

The regulatory and security context that raises the stakes​

EU AI Act and analogous regimes: new compliance obligations​

Regulation changes the calculus: the EU AI Act introduces obligations for providers and deployers of general‑purpose AI and higher-risk models — transparency, training-data disclosures and governance rules with phased timelines for enforcement. Organisations that embed AI into business processes must plan for these timelines because noncompliance could carry heavy fines and operational constraints. The EU’s schedule enforces certain GPAI obligations from August 2025 and enacts more stringent rules on high‑risk systems later.

DORA and third‑party risk​

Financial-sector and critical‑infrastructure rules (for example, digital operational resilience frameworks) increasingly require demonstrable vendor oversight, continuity testing, and auditable data‑handling pathways. When a cloud SLA doesn’t provide auditability or clear operational controls, regulated organisations may be required to apply additional mitigations or move workloads to compliant environments.

Zero trust and Security as Code: controls that reduce SLA exposure​

• Zero trust architectures narrow the attack surface and provide per‑request decisioning for access, a critical control for distributed, cloud-first estates. NIST’s body of guidance (SP 800‑207 and newer implementation guidance) provides practical patterns and sample deployments for multi‑cloud zero‑trust designs.
• Security as Code (and policy-as-code) embeds enforcement into CI/CD and IaC pipelines: automated pre‑deployment controls, OPA/Regex-based policy gates, and automated drift detection ensure deployed infrastructure adheres to the organisation’s security posture, reducing exposure that SLAs cannot guarantee. Repositories and vendor samples show how policy-as-code prevents common misconfigurations before they hit production.

---

Real-world signals: generative AI incidents, Copilot cache leaks and shadow IT​

The generative‑AI era crystallised this risk. Two patterns are especially instructive.

1) AI indexing and cached data: ephemeral public exposure becomes persistent risk​

Security researchers found that content briefly public on GitHub — later made private — remained accessible through AI assistants that leveraged cached search results. Investigations revealed tens of thousands of “zombie” repositories were still reachable via Copilot because Bing caches and AI indexing persisted beyond the public window. This is an instructive example: even small developer mistakes can become long‑lived systemic risk when a cloud provider’s tooling and caching layers are accessible to AI agents. Organisations must treat ephemeral public exposure as permanently compromised and rotate secrets immediately.
Caveat: counts and severity levels vary between reports; treat early numbers as indicative rather than definitive, and verify exposure with vendor logs and forensic traces when possible.

2) Shadow IT and third‑party model routing: functionality vs. governance​

Rapid adoption of productivity assistants and embedded models drives shadow IT. Engineers and knowledge workers route sensitive data to third‑party inference endpoints for convenience; procurement and security teams may only discover these flows after the fact. This behaviour exposes two fault lines:

• Contractual: which provider’s terms apply, and who bears liability?
• Technical: which regions, egress flows and replica copies hold the data?

Computer Weekly and other practitioners warn that SLA and shared‑responsibility misunderstandings are behind many of these governance surprises. Enterprises must design policy controls that prevent unvetted model routing and instrument model-level telemetry (model ID, region, timestamp) to maintain auditability.

---

Architecture and procurement patterns that reduce the strategic gap​

The following practical patterns can reduce SLA-induced strategic risk without killing innovation.

1. Make physical routing and latency a procurement metric​

• Negotiate optional carrier‑route diversity, peering maps, and contractual obligations for alternate transit capacity during corridor damage events.
• Require providers to disclose physical transit dependencies for mission‑critical workloads. WindowsForum practitioner guidance shows this matters — subsea‑cable faults produced widespread latency problems that SLAs did not cover.

2. Adopt a “performance-first” SLO strategy​

• Define Service‑Level Objectives (SLOs) with business‑impact thresholds (e.g., 95% of claims filings complete within X seconds) and instrument with SLO error budgets.
• Use SLO-driven ops to trigger fallbacks (edge caching, region swap, degraded‑mode UX) automatically when thresholds are breached.

3. Multi‑homing and active‑active where it matters​

• Reserve active‑active cross‑cloud deployments for latency‑critical flows but balance complexity and cost. The goal: avoid relying on a single physical corridor. Operational playbooks must include tests for correlated failures — not just total outages.

4. Principal-of-least‑privilege + BYOK + customer‑controlled audit​

• Hold keys and manage key‑rotation policies internally when regulatory or evidentiary access is sensitive. Require provider attestations, independent audit rights and contractual SLAs for forensic access.

5. Security-as-Code in the pipeline​

• Enforce guardrails pre‑deployment with OPA/Conftest/CI gates; this moves the fix-left imperative into the build process and reduces misconfiguration-driven incidents that SLAs will not prevent.

---

How to renegotiate and operationalise stronger guarantees​

SLAs are negotiable in the enterprise. The trick is to be strategic about which guarantees matter and how to operationalise them.

A negotiation checklist​

• Map business‑critical flows and define the experience you need (use XLA/OKR language).
• Translate experience into measurable SLOs (latency, inference accuracy bands, RPO/RTO).
• Insert contractual clauses for:
• Auditable physical route maps and peering choices for mission‑critical flows.
• Data‑handling and retention guarantees for model training and inference.
• Escrow, continuity playbooks and documented runbooks for provider-initiated terminations.
• Negotiate financial and non‑financial remedies (technical assistance, pre‑allocated spare capacity) tied to KRI thresholds.

When to consider strategic withdrawal​

If a provider refuses reasonable transparency or contractual audit rights for a workload that the company classifies as high‑risk, leaders should consider hybrid alternatives, bringing the workload on‑premises or to a sovereign cloud until contractual and technical protections match the business tolerance for risk. Computer Weekly’s analysis emphasises that leaders must be willing to withdraw to preserve resilience and reputational trust when contractual limits create unmanageable exposure.

---

Organisational roles and governance: who owns the gap?​

Closing the SLA gap is cross‑functional work. Responsibilities map roughly like this:

• Board / Executive: set risk appetite and decide when strategic withdrawal is warranted.
• CTO / Architecture: map physical and logical dependencies, propose mitigations (multi‑homing, edge strategies).
• CISO / Risk: define KRIs, require vendor attestations, run continuity tests and independent audits.
• Procurement / Legal: negotiate audit rights, route‑diversity clauses, data‑handling SLAs and indemnities.
• SRE / Product: instrument SLOs, design fallbacks and maintain runbooks for degraded performance.

Organisations that lock these roles into a coordinated lifecycle (procure → architect → operate → audit) reduce the time-to-detect and time-to-mitigate for incidents that SLAs alone won’t fix.

---

Strengths, limitations and the unresolved questions​

Notable strengths of the layered approach​

• Aligns technology guarantees with business outcomes through XLAs + OKRs.
• Converts qualitative experience into measurable triggers (so teams act before reputational damage).
• Moves security left via Security as Code, reducing breaches caused by misconfiguration rather than provider faults.

Residual risks and blind spots​

• Contract negotiation is asymmetric: hyperscalers have market leverage and standard contracts that are hard to alter for smaller customers.
• Some physical‑layer risks (e.g., subsea cable repairs delayed by geopolitics) are outside the control of vendors and customers, demanding pan‑industry resilience investments.
• Rapidly changing regulatory regimes (EU AI Act, national digital rules) complicate long‑term provider commitments; the precise interplay between provider responsibilities and deployer obligations will evolve and remain a source of legal ambiguity.

Areas that need verification and cautious treatment​

• Public figures cited in early post‑incident reports (counts of exposed repositories, exact volumes of sensitive records seen by assistants) vary between researchers and vendor statements; treat them as indicative and validate against vendor logs and forensic exports when available.

---

Practical checklist for CTOs, CISOs and procurement leaders​

• Inventory: Map each critical workflow to the provider(s), regions, carrier transit and SLOs that matter.
• Instrumentation: Ensure telemetry includes model IDs, region, egress path, and inference latency.
• Contract asks: Add XLA/OKR language, KRI triggers, physical-route disclosure and auditable data‑handling clauses.
• Security posture: Implement zero‑trust controls and Security‑as‑Code gates in CI/CD.
• Resilience tests: Run failure-injection exercises for degraded‑performance scenarios (not just “down” states).
• Governance: Add KRI review to the executive risk committee with pre-agreed remediation thresholds.
• Contingency: Maintain documented fallback and re‑hosting plans; test exports/escrows.

---

Conclusion​

The era of assuming that a provider’s uptime guarantee equals business readiness is over. SLAs still matter — they are the baseline contract for operational expectations — but they are increasingly insufficient as the single instrument for modern cloud governance. Organisations that combine XLAs, KRIs, OKRs, rigorous zero‑trust design and Security as Code practices will be able to extract innovation from cloud platforms without ceding accountability.
Leadership must therefore treat SLA gaps as strategic signals — not showstoppers — and build the cross‑functional governance, contractual muscle and architecture patterns necessary to translate ambition into measurable, auditable outcomes. When a provider’s contractual and technical profile cannot be made to meet a workload’s risk posture, executives need the courage and playbook to withdraw and preserve resilience. The winners will be the organisations that balance ambition with accountability, and measure the cloud not by the uptime it promises on paper, but by the outcomes it delivers in practice.

---

Source: SC Media Cloud SLA gaps pose strategic risks for leaders