If you want advantage on governance, hit subscribe—it’s the stat buff that keeps your castle standing. Now, imagine giving Copilot the keys to your company’s content… but forgetting to lock the doors. That’s what happens when advanced AI runs inside a weak governance structure. SharePoint Premium doesn’t just boost productivity with AI—it includes SharePoint Advanced Management, or SAM, which adds walls like Restricted Access Control, Data Access Governance, and site lifecycle tools. SAM helps reduce oversharing and manage access, but you still need policies and owners to act. In this run, you’ll see how to spot overshared sites, enforce Restricted Access Control, and even run access reviews so your walls aren’t guarded by ducks. Which brings us to the question—does a moat really keep you safe?Why Your Castle Needs More Than a MoatBasic permissions feel comforting until you realize they don’t scale with the way AI works. Copilot can read, understand, and surface content from SharePoint and OneDrive at lightning speed. That’s great for productivity, but it also means anything shared too broadly becomes easier to discover. Role-based access control alone doesn’t catch this. It’s the illusion of safety—strong in theory, but shallow when one careless link spreads access wider than planned. The real problem isn’t that Copilot leaks data on its own—it’s that misconfigured sharing creates a larger surface area for Copilot to surface insights. A forgotten contract library with wide-open links looks harmless until the system happily indexes the files and makes them searchable. Suddenly, what was tucked in a corner turns into part of the knowledge backbone. Oversharing isn’t always dramatic—it’s often invisible, and that’s the bigger risk. This is where SharePoint Advanced Management comes in. Basic RBAC is your moat, but SAM adds walls and watchtowers. The walls are the enforcement policies you configure, and the watchtowers are your Data Access Governance views. DAG reports give administrators visibility into potentially overshared sites—what’s shared externally, how many files carry sensitivity labels, or which sites are using broad groups like “Everyone except external users.” With these views, you don’t just walk in circles telling yourself everything’s locked down—you can actually spot the fires smoldering on the horizon. DAG isn’t item-by-item forensics; it’s site-level intelligence. You see where oversharing is most likely, who the primary admin is, and how sensitive content might be spread. That’s usually enough to trigger a meaningful review, because now IT and content owners know *where* to look instead of guessing. Think of it as a high tower with a spyglass. You don’t see each arrow in flight, but you notice which gates are unguarded. Like any tool, DAG has limits. Some reports show only the top 100 sites in the admin center for the past 30 days, with CSV exports going up to 10,000 rows—and in some cases, up to a million. Reports can take hours to generate, and you can only run them once a day. That means you’re not aiming for nonstop surveillance. Instead, DAG gives you recurring, high-level intelligence that you still need to act on. Without people stepping in, a report is just a scroll pinned to the wall. So what happens when you act on it? Let’s go back to the contract library example. Running audits by hand across every site is impossible. But from that DAG report, you might spot the one site with external links still live from a completed project. It’s not an obvious problem until you see it—yet that one gate could let the wrong person stroll past your defenses. Now, instead of combing through thousands of sites, you zero in on the one that matters. And here’s the payoff: using DAG doesn’t just show you a problem, it shows you unknown problems. It shifts the posture from “assume everything’s fine” to “prove everything is in shape.” It’s better than running around with a torch hoping you see something—because the tower view means you don’t waste hours on blind patrols. But here’s the catch: spotting risk is only half the battle. You still need people inside the castle to care enough to fix it. A moat and tower don’t matter if the folks in charge of the gates keep leaving them open. That’s where we look next—because in this defense system, the site owners aren’t just inhabitants. They’re supposed to be the guards.Turning Site Owners into Castle GuardsIn practice, a lot of governance gaps come from the way responsibilities are split. IT builds the systems, but the people closest to the content—the site owners—know who actually needs to be inside. They have the local context, which means they’re the only ones who can spot when a guest account or legacy teammate no longer belongs. That’s why SharePoint Advanced Management includes a feature built for them: Site Access Reviews. Most SAM features live in the hands of admins through the SharePoint admin center. But Site Access Reviews are different—they directly involve site owners. Instead of IT chasing down every outdated permission on every site, the feature pushes a prompt to the owner: here’s your list of who has access, now confirm who should stay. It’s a simple checklist, but it shifts the job from overloaded central admins to the people who actually understand the project history. The difference might not sound like much, but it rewires the whole governance model. Without this, IT tries to manage hundreds or thousands of sites blind, often relying on stale org charts or detective work through audit logs. With Site Access Reviews, IT delegates the check to owners who know who wrapped up the project six months ago and which externals should have been removed with it. No spreadsheets, no endless ticket queues. Just a structured prompt that makes ownership real. Take a common example: a project site is dormant, external sharing was never tightened, and a guest account is still roaming around months after the last handoff. Without this feature, IT has to hunt and guess. With Site Access Reviews, the site owner gets a nudge and can end that access in seconds. It’s not flashy—it’s scheduled housekeeping. But it prevents the quiet risks that usually turn into breach headlines. Another benefit is how the system links together. Data Access Governance reports highlight where oversharing is most likely: sites with broad groups like “Everyone” or external links. From there, you can initiate Site Access Reviews as a corrective step. One tool spots the gates left open, the other hands the keys back to the people running that tower. And if you’re managing at scale, there’s support for automation. If you run DAG outputs and use the PowerShell support, you can script actions or integrate with wider workflows so this isn’t just a manual cycle—it scales with the size of your tenant. The response from business units is usually better than admins expect. At first glance, a site owner might view this as extra work. But in practice, it gives them more control. They’re no longer left wondering why IT revoked a permission without warning. They’re the ones making the call, backed by clear data. Governance stops feeling like top-down enforcement and starts feeling like shared stewardship. And for IT, this is a huge relief. Instead of being the bottleneck handling every request, they set the policies, generate the DAG reports, and review overall compliance. They oversee the castle walls, but they don’t have to patrol every hallway. Owners do their part, AI provides the intelligence, and IT stays focused on bigger strategy rather than micromanaging. The system works because the roles are divided cleanly. In day-to-day terms, this keeps access drift from building up unchecked. Guest accounts don’t linger for years because owners are reminded to prune them. Overshared sites get revisited at regular intervals. Admins still manage the framework, but the continual maintenance is distributed. That’s a stronger model than endless firefighting. Seen together, Site Access Reviews with DAG reporting become less about command and control, and more about keeping the halls tidy so Copilot and other AI tools don’t surface content that never should have been visible. It’s proactive, not reactive. You get fewer surprises, fewer blind spots, and far less stress when auditors come asking hard questions. Of course, not every problem is about who should be inside the castle. Sometimes the bigger question is what kind of lock you’re putting on each door. Because even if owners are doing their reviews, not every room in your estate needs the same defenses.The Difference Between Bolting the Door and Locking the VaultSometimes the real challenge isn’t convincing people to care about access—it’s choosing the right type of lock once they do. In SharePoint, that choice often comes down to two very different tools: Block Download and Restricted Access Control. Both guard sensitive content, but they work in distinct ways, and knowing the difference saves you from either choking off productivity or leaving gaps wider than you realize. Block Download is the lighter hand. It lets users view files in the browser but prevents downloading, printing, or syncing them. That also means no pulling the content into Office desktop apps or third‑party programs—the data stays inside your controlled web session. It’s a “look, but don’t carry” model. Administrators can configure it at the site level or even tie it to sensitivity labels so only marked content gets that extra protection. Some configurations, like applying it for Teams recordings, do require PowerShell, so it’s worth remembering this isn’t always a toggle in the UI. Restricted Access Control—or RAC—operates at a tougher level. Instead of controlling what happens after someone’s inside, it sets who can even get through the door in the first place. With RAC, only members of a specific Microsoft 365 group or Entra security group can see or disc
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/m365-fm-modern-work-security-and-productivity-with-microsoft-365--6704921/support.
If this clashes with how you’ve seen it play out, I’m always curious. I use LinkedIn for the back-and-forth.
