Make your next security decision with evidence.

Choose the outcome you need.

A complete review follows the dependencies.

A coverage plan spans the layers below. It identifies what was observed, declared, inferred or not tested. It does not claim one tool can scan everything.

From question to retest.

1. Define one workflow and accountable owner.
2. Agree scope, evidence, permission, fees and data handling.
3. Review evidence and validate material findings.
4. Assign changes, acceptance criteria and recovery.
5. Retest and record unresolved or accepted risks.

Enquiries use email drafts. Registration and manual work-email verification are required for personalised assessment reports and Learning Studio access. Registration does not prove asset ownership or authorise testing.

What a deliverable contains

Inspect an illustrative review record: scope, observation, evidence, impact, owner, change, acceptance test and coverage gaps. The example is fictional, not a client result.

Models support the investigation.

Use an LLM candidate for evidence interpretation and report drafting; compare a tabular model and rules for transaction fraud; validate results before response. The current tools use versioned rules and scripted teaching scenarios. They do not call an external model.

Model choice depends on measured error, latency, cost, privacy and provider access. No model can supply missing telemetry or permission. Provider-specific integrations belong behind adapters; approval and action enforcement remain independent.

Claude candidates · LightGBM · Microsoft security integration option