Every organisation that owns, operates or invests in critical sites faces the same five decision moments. VIGIL exists for all of them.
Before a lease is signed. Before a planning application is filed. Before an architect is engaged. The site selection decision is the most consequential decision in the asset lifecycle — and the one most often made on the basis of a consultant's opinion with no structured evidence trail.
VIGIL produces a scored, evidence-backed verdict before capital is committed. Not a recommendation — a finding. With every indicator scored, every source named, and every condition documented.
The site has been selected. Capital is committed. The architect is engaged. This is the moment where the assessment findings must become design requirements — not suggestions in a folder, but formal conditions embedded in the brief before a drawing is produced.
VIGIL converts constraint findings into precise design parameters. A petroleum depot 200 metres east becomes a blast wall specification. A single-provider power dependency becomes an N+1 requirement. Risk is embedded in the design, not retrofitted to it.
The facility is live. Operations are running. The original assessment was conducted two years ago in a different risk landscape. The question is not whether the original verdict was correct — it was. The question is whether it is still correct today.
VIGIL maintains a live intelligence picture around every site in the portfolio. When the environment moves in ways that matter to the mission — a new threat actor, a grid reliability decline, a community opposition campaign — the platform flags it before it becomes a problem.
A new site is under consideration. Individually it may be suitable. But the question is not whether it is suitable in isolation — it is whether it makes the portfolio better or worse.
A fourth data centre in the same submarine cable zone creates a concentration risk invisible at site level. A new logistics hub in the same flood plain as an existing warehouse doubles exposure. VIGIL evaluates new sites against the portfolio context, not in isolation. Concentration risk, dependency overlap, and interdependency between assets are visible before capital is committed.
The board asks why this site was selected. The insurer asks what the risk assessment showed. The regulator asks for the evidence behind the rating. The acquirer's legal team asks for the methodology documentation.
These are not hypothetical questions. They are asked. And organisations that made their decisions on the basis of a consultant's judgement — with no structured evidence trail — cannot answer them.
VIGIL makes every decision defensible. Not by producing better reports. By producing findings: scored, traced, reproducible, and auditable at the indicator level.
Every score traced to a named source with a recorded date. Every anchor statement selection logged. The evidence is always complete — not reconstructed after the fact.
MCI tells you how well the assessment knows what it concluded. A finding with MCI 91 is a verified conclusion. A finding with MCI 34 is a provisional one. The difference is explicit, not buried.
Two assessors, same site, same evidence, same methodology — same result. The finding is not personal. It is institutional. It holds regardless of who ran it.
Every weight justified to a published standard or expert panel. Every indicator pre-classified before the assessment begins. The methodology is the audit trail for the finding.
VIGIL is used by the people who sign the decisions — and the teams that have to defend them.
See how VIGIL works across your specific mission type and decision context.