Artificial intelligence has been embedded in physical security systems for years, particularly in video surveillance and alarm monitoring. Detection accuracy, once the primary benchmark for performance, has reached a level where most modern platforms can reliably identify events, behaviors, or anomalies.
As a result, the industry’s focus is shifting toward what happens after detection. For security systems integrators and consultants, this shift has practical implications for system design, integration, and customer outcomes.
Interviews with security technology executives point to two closely related themes shaping this next phase. The first is decision prioritization, or how quickly and effectively a system helps human teams determine what deserves attention. The second is trust, especially in an environment increasingly affected by AI-generated manipulation and uncertainty over what evidence can be relied upon.
Together, these trends are redefining how AI and automation are evaluated in physical security deployments.
From detection to decision-making
Detection remains a foundational requirement for any security platform. Cameras must see, analytics must flag activity, and systems must generate alerts. However, according to Matt Tengwall, Senior Vice President and Global General Manager for Fraud and Security Solutions at Verint, detection alone is no longer the differentiator it once was.
“Detection remains important, but most platforms already perform reliably at identifying activity,” Tengwall said. “The real shift is what happens after detection and how quickly teams can determine what requires attention.”
For integrators working with enterprise, financial, or critical infrastructure customers, this distinction matters. As AI-driven analytics proliferate, organizations often find themselves managing a growing volume of alerts without a proportional increase in staffing. The challenge is not whether events can be identified, but whether teams can respond in a timely and consistent way.
Tengwall pointed to banking environments as an example, where security teams face continuous alert streams alongside operational and service pressures. “In banking environments, teams manage a steady flow of alerts alongside staffing constraints and service expectations,” he said.
In such settings, indiscriminate alerts can overwhelm operators and reduce overall effectiveness. The value of AI increasingly lies in its ability to support human judgment, rather than replace it.
Context as a prioritization tool
A key enabler of better decision-making is context. Modern security platforms are incorporating contextual data to help operators understand not just that something happened, but whether it matters.
“Context now plays a larger role in shaping decisions,” Tengwall said. “Time of day, location, and normal activity patterns help distinguish routine behavior from situations that may carry higher risk.”
This approach is especially relevant in video surveillance deployments, where the same behavior can have very different implications depending on circumstances. Tengwall offered a simple illustration: “Someone lingering near an ATM late at night presents a different concern than normal daytime foot traffic.”
For integrators, this highlights the importance of systems that can ingest and correlate multiple data points, including schedules, historical activity patterns, and environmental factors. Rather than treating every detected event equally, platforms that surface context early enable more nuanced responses.
“When systems surface this context early, teams can prioritize more effectively and avoid spending time on low priority activity,” Tengwall said. “This leads to steadier decision making and better alignment across security, operations, and branch leadership.”
From a deployment perspective, this trend places greater emphasis on configuration, tuning, and integration. AI analytics must be aligned with customer workflows and risk profiles, not simply enabled by default.
Operational impact for security teams
The shift toward prioritization has downstream effects on daily security operations. For many organizations, security teams operate under resource constraints, with limited personnel expected to cover multiple sites or functions. Poorly prioritized alerts can contribute to fatigue and missed incidents.
By contrast, systems that help filter and rank events allow teams to focus their attention where it is most needed. This does not eliminate human decision-making, but it supports it with clearer signals.
For consultants advising end users, this reinforces the need to evaluate AI capabilities beyond headline accuracy metrics. Questions around how alerts are presented, how context is displayed, and how decisions are escalated are becoming just as important as detection rates.
It also affects how success is measured. Instead of asking how many events were detected, organizations increasingly ask whether incidents were resolved faster, whether false alarms were reduced, and whether security teams feel confident in their responses.
Trust and authenticity in AI-driven security
While prioritization addresses the volume and relevance of alerts, another challenge is emerging around trust. As AI technologies become more sophisticated, so do methods for manipulation, including deepfakes and synthetic media.
Jason Crawforth, Founder and CEO of SWEAR, described this as a fundamental shift in how security platforms are evaluated. “The balance has shifted from asking whether something can be detected to asking whether it can be trusted,” he said.
In environments where video, audio, and digital records may be questioned, trust becomes central to both security operations and legal processes. Crawforth noted that AI is placing new pressure on evidentiary standards. “In the world of AI, manipulation, and deepfakes, it's important that teams have confidence in their data,” he said.
This concern extends beyond cybersecurity into physical security, particularly where video footage or access logs may be used as evidence. Crawforth said, “AI is placing increasing pressure on the legal system, as evidentiary standards shift from proving that something is fake to proving that it is real.”
For integrators and consultants, this raises new considerations around system design and vendor selection. Technologies that can help establish authenticity and integrity may become essential components of future deployments.
Establishing confidence in security data
According to Crawforth, modern platforms are responding by focusing more explicitly on authenticity. “Today’s security platforms are moving to confirm authenticity because trust is built by clearly establishing what is real, what is reliable, and what can be acted on without doubt,” he said.
In practical terms, this may involve mechanisms to validate the source of data, ensure that footage has not been altered, or provide clear audit trails. While the interview did not detail specific techniques, the emphasis on trust signals a broader industry direction.
For physical security professionals, this trend intersects with regulatory compliance, investigations, and customer liability. Systems that cannot demonstrate the integrity of their outputs may expose end users to legal and operational risks.
As AI-generated content becomes more convincing, the burden on security systems shifts from simple detection to verification. This has implications for how AI analytics are trained, how data is stored, and how evidence is presented to stakeholders.
Implications for system integration
Taken together, the themes of prioritization and trust suggest a maturing phase for AI in physical security. Integrators are no longer simply enabling analytics but are expected to design systems that support decision-making and withstand scrutiny.
This places greater responsibility on integration quality. Contextual data often resides in disparate systems, such as access control platforms, building management systems, or transaction databases. Effective prioritization depends on reliable integration across these domains.
Similarly, establishing trust may require coordination between physical security, IT, and legal teams. Consultants may be called upon to advise not just on technology selection, but on governance, data handling, and operational procedures.
The interviews underscore that AI and automation are not reducing the role of human judgment. Instead, they are reshaping it. Platforms are expected to surface the right information, at the right time, with a level of confidence that supports decisive action.
A shifting benchmark for AI success
For many years, accuracy rates dominated conversations around AI in security. While still necessary, they are no longer sufficient. As Tengwall and Crawforth both suggest, the industry’s benchmarks are evolving.
Speed of decision-making, clarity of context, and confidence in authenticity are becoming key measures of value. For end users, this translates into more manageable workloads and clearer accountability. For integrators and consultants, it creates opportunities to add value through thoughtful system design and advisory services.
As AI continues to evolve, physical security professionals will need to balance technological capability with operational reality. Detection may be assumed, but prioritization and trust will increasingly define whether a system truly delivers on its promise.