Reading an illustrative exposure report

Read scope and evidence before the headline score. This walkthrough explains a synthetic example of the published method; it is not a customer report or a promise of a current automated reporting feature.

#What the three numbers mean

#Check the arithmetic

weighted contribution = 6295
criticality-weighted asset count = 84
estate score = 6295 / 84 = 74.940...
round half-up = 75
tier = Elevated (65–84)

The distribution is 13 Acute, 16 Elevated, 7 Watch and 6 Contained. These counts sum to 42. The estate tier can change when a sufficiently influential cohort changes. The methodology publishes the cohort inputs and rounding rule.

#Questions to ask of a real finding

• Which input and revision produced the observation?
• What evidence supports the algorithm and parameters? What remains unknown?
• What was excluded from the scope?
• Which parts are observed facts, which are declared context, and which are judgements?
• Does the method version match any earlier result being compared?

#Performance and accuracy require separate evidence

The earlier synthetic classifier evaluation does not establish accuracy on customer systems. No review-speed improvement is established by this worked example. A timing comparison needs a common scope, a documented manual baseline, run logs, software and hardware versions, repeated runs and quality checks.

#Product status

Mapping, prioritisation and performance evaluation are planned modules. The published scoring method explains an approach; it does not establish the availability of automated scoring, integrations. Console: Announced (roadmap).