Our offerings

01 / AXENTYR Intelligence

Understand and decide.

Turn authorised sources into a clear view of the situation, its relationships, conflicting evidence and the options to examine.

Scope an intelligence engagementSee prerequisites
Conceptual illustration · Intelligence

Who it is for

Leaders, analysts and intelligence, risk or compliance teams in institutions, banks and businesses, with a defined question and authorised access to relevant data.

Development status

In development. The analyst workspace, source integrations and service terms are being defined; no platform deployment is announced.

The proposition

Connect the evidence. Compare your options.

Use a defined research workspace to organise documents, organisations, events and operations. Examine relationships, dates, missing information and contradictions before preparing an options brief. Every conclusion should be traceable to its sources and ready for an analyst’s validation.

Frame the decision first: a supplier choice, a bank’s counterparty review or a public institution’s operational priorities. Bring client documents and agreed external sources into one investigation, then trace the evidence behind each finding. Choose an analyst workspace, a commissioned study or monitoring, independently or together.

Explore the Platform architecture A shared target architecture, with no required bundle of offerings.

Scope

A focused scope.

01

Sources and context

Connect permitted client documents and agreed external sources, with dates, provenance, access rights and the decision context kept visible.

02

Relationships and contradictions

Build dossiers around organisations, documents, events and operations. Examine links, conflicting accounts and information gaps without turning an unverified match into a fact.

03

Options and validation

Prepare sourced briefs, monitoring alerts and dashboards that compare options and make assumptions explicit, with a named reviewer before circulation.

How the work is structured

From the task
to a reviewed result.

An engagement starts from your objective and defines the inputs, work and validation needed to address it.

  1. 01

    Frame the decision

    Define the question, the users, the time window and the options the organisation needs to compare. Specify what a useful answer would contain.

  2. 02

    Agree and organise the sources

    Check rights of use, select client documents and external sources, and preserve references, dates and access boundaries when structuring the dossiers.

  3. 03

    Investigate links and conflicting evidence

    Examine organisations, events and dependencies together. Record contradictory accounts, uncertain identities and gaps instead of silently resolving them.

  4. 04

    Present options for review

    Prepare a sourced brief with alternatives, assumptions and unresolved questions. A designated analyst validates the evidence before a decision-maker uses the result.

Questions in context

See how a project
could be scoped.

Illustrative situations. These examples describe a question, the inputs and a result to review; they are not accounts of delivered work.

Enterprise

Assess a supplier before committing

Question
Which relationships, dependencies and conflicting signals should a business examine before selecting a supplier?
Inputs
Authorised procurement records, supplier documents, contract requirements and selected public filings or sector publications, within an agreed time window.
Output
A supplier dossier linking organisations and events to their sources, a list of contradictory claims or missing records, and options such as seeking clarification, adjusting the scope or conducting further review.
Human review
A procurement or risk specialist checks entity matches and source dates, resolves material contradictions with the supplier and approves the brief. The business retains the contracting decision.

Bank

Prepare a counterparty review

Question
What does the authorised evidence show about a counterparty, and which assumptions need checking before a bank makes its decision?
Inputs
Client-authorised counterparty files, internal risk criteria, permitted financial disclosures and relevant published events. Access and use restrictions are defined before analysis.
Output
A sourced view of entities and relationships, a timeline of relevant events, conflicting evidence and a brief comparing the review options against the bank’s stated criteria.
Human review
A bank analyst validates identity, figures and interpretation against the original documents. Unresolved points go to the responsible risk team; the output does not automatically approve or reject a counterparty.

Public sector

Compare operational priorities

Question
How should a public institution compare resource options when its operational situation changes?
Inputs
Authorised departmental reports, operational constraints, relevant published information and approved records of events or dependencies. Only sources permitted for this specific question are included.
Output
A situation brief connecting events to affected operations, showing contradictory reports, evidence gaps and alternative priorities with their assumptions and practical implications.
Human review
The responsible analysts verify the source records and consult the teams concerned. An authorised public decision-maker validates priorities and records the reasoning for the chosen option.

Deliverables

A defined scope.
Useful deliverables.

A worked example

From conflicting sources to a reviewable decision.

A fictional supplier review connects source records, relationships and competing explanations before a person validates the decision.

Research dossier / Supplier review Mock-up — fictional data

Synthetic data. Every source, asset, state and decision below belongs to this example.

The question

Can Supplier A’s relationship with Distributor B be treated as current?

Decision owner: procurement review lead. The dossier supports a review; it does not approve a supplier.

Evidence

Three sources. One conflict.

E-A Draft document

Distribution agreement

Names Supplier A and Distributor B as parties to a proposed agreement.

Draft — execution unconfirmed
Read qualification

The example contains no signature page. Naming the parties supports a proposed relationship, not proof that the agreement took effect.

E-B Ownership record

Registry extract

Lists Organisation C as a shareholder of Distributor B.

Record — currency unconfirmed
Read qualification

The ownership link is present in this synthetic record. Its current validity and Organisation C’s role in the agreement still require checking.

E-C Reported statement

Supplier call note

Reports that Supplier A no longer uses Distributor B.

Contradicts the apparent ongoing relationship
Read qualification

This fictional note conflicts with treating the draft as a current arrangement. The statement has no independent confirmation in the dossier.

Relationships

A link is not a conclusion.

Organisation

Supplier A

Proposed agreement Draft document · E-A
Organisation

Distributor B

Shareholder listed Registry extract · E-B
Organisation

Organisation C

Relationship disputed · E-C

The call note challenges a current A–B relationship. Keep the contradiction attached to the link.

Reading brief

What can be said now?

Supported

E-A names A and B in a draft. E-B records C’s ownership link to B.

Uncertain

Execution of the agreement, current ownership and the reported end of the relationship are unconfirmed.

Validation required

Obtain a signed agreement, a current ownership record and independent confirmation of E-C.

Options compared

Make the choice explicit.

Proceed on the draft alone

Preserves momentum, but leaves the source conflict and execution gap unresolved.

Validation incomplete

Hold the conclusion and verify

Seek the missing records and reconcile E-C before treating the relationship as current.

Selected in this simulation

Human validation

A decision with a trail.

The procurement review lead must validate the evidence and the scope before any real decision.

Read the simulated decision journal
  1. Question recorded Review whether the A–B relationship can be treated as current.
  2. Contradiction retained E-C is attached to E-A; it is not silently discarded.
  3. Option B selected The simulated reviewer requests validation before a conclusion.
  4. Decision still open No supplier approval is issued by this example.

Engagement options

A scope of its own.
A contract of its own.

Each offering has its own contract. Select the scope, access model and support arrangements that fit your needs.

Platform for your analysts

A research environment for your analysts: agreed source connections, structured dossiers, sourced briefs, alerts and dashboards. Define access permissions, integrations and reporting needs with your teams.

Commissioned intelligence services

Commission a study or ongoing monitoring with a defined question, authorised sources, a documented method and agreed reporting frequency. This route is independent of the workspace and can also complement it.

Pricing structure

  • Initial integration and source configuration, priced for the agreed scope.
  • A workspace subscription with access, features and support specified in its contract.
  • Commissioned studies and monitoring priced for their own scope, with the option to combine platform and service elements.

Before an engagement

Conditions to agree.

Prerequisites

  • A decision question, intended readers, timeframe and evaluation criteria.
  • Authorised sources, data owners and agreed access, retention and sharing rules.
  • A named analyst to review identities, contradictions and conclusions.
  • A selected engagement route: workspace, commissioned study, monitoring or a scoped combination.

Operating responsibilities

  • Source permissions, connection feasibility and data protection requirements must be verified before integration.
  • The scope excludes universal data collection or assumed privileged access to information.
  • Findings depend on source quality and the uncertainties stated in the analysis; the client retains responsibility for its decisions.

Independent offerings

Explore the other offerings.

AXENTYR Intelligence can be considered on its own. A combination is optional and starts with your needs.

02

AXENTYR Security

Make assets, dependencies and coverage visible, then qualify alerts and coordinate the investigation of a cyber or operational incident.

Explore this offering 03

AXENTYR Robotics

Connect sensors, AI models and operators to a defined mission on a quadruped, humanoid or drone, with links to the client’s existing systems.

Explore this offering

Useful questions

Questions about Intelligence.

What is AXENTYR Intelligence designed to do?

Help enterprise, bank and public-sector teams examine a decision using authorised evidence. The scope connects sources, maps relationships, records contradictions and compares options, with a named analyst validating the brief before it is used.

Which data can an intelligence study use?

Client-provided data and external sources whose use is authorised for the engagement. Source permissions and data protection requirements must be checked first. Analysis should retain references and distinguish facts, assumptions and uncertainty.

Can we commission analysis without using a platform?

Yes. The engagement options include a commissioned study or monitoring service on its own, an analyst workspace, or a combination of both. Each engagement needs a defined question, sources, method, deliverables and contract.

How would AI support the analysis?

Help organise documents, relate organisations and events, and surface information to examine. An uncertain match or conflicting source remains an open question. Analysts check the references and reasoning; decision-makers remain responsible for the final choice.

AXENTYR Intelligence

Define the decision. Scope the analysis.

Bring your question, the sources you may use and the people who will review the result. We can frame the workspace, study or monitoring scope around those requirements.

Scope an intelligence engagement