VIGIL answers one question
the industry never structured.
Should this mission be located at this site? Not: what are the threats here. Not: which location do we prefer. Not: are we compliant. The pre-commitment question — whether a site is inherently suitable for the intended mission before a single design decision is made — has no structured framework in the market. Every other tool answers a different question.
VIGIL is designed for this specific moment: before capital is committed, before an architect is engaged, before a planning application is filed. The assessment runs on the site as it is — before controls, before design, before mitigation. What the location inherits by virtue of its geography, its infrastructure, its threat environment, and its trajectory is what VIGIL scores.
"The constraint was always there. The trajectory was always visible. The question was never structured correctly — and the methodology never ran long enough to find the answer. VIGIL is built to ask the question that should have been asked first."
Three lenses.
One verdict.
VIGIL deliberately avoids the simplistic weighted average approach used by most assessment frameworks. A site that scores 70 on average can hide a critical failure in one domain behind strong performance in others. VIGIL applies three separate analytical lenses that together produce the Mission Suitability Index.
Scores the intrinsic capability of the site to support the intended mission. Power access, connectivity, plot geometry, water availability, market position, regulatory alignment. Everything the site brings to the mission before any design or controls are applied.
Scores the severity of constraints inherited by virtue of location — proximity hazards, regulatory complexity, environmental sensitivity, geopolitical exposure. Constraints are scored independently of whether they are mitigable. A constraint that can be engineered against is still a constraint.
Scores the realistic ability to overcome identified constraints — engineering options, cost reasonableness, regulatory pathway, precedent from comparable projects. A high feasibility score does not eliminate the constraint; it confirms the constraint has a credible path to resolution. The cost of that path becomes the Constraint Economics output.
The three layer scores combine — with domain weighting applied — to produce the Mission Suitability Index (MSI). Because the layers are independent, a site with exceptional Mission Fit but severe Constraint Burden and low Mitigation Feasibility produces a materially different MSI than one with moderate scores across all three. The structure prevents gaming by averaging.
Six domains.
Mission-weighted.
Every assessment covers six domains. Domain weights are calibrated to the mission type — a Critical infrastructure assessment applies a different weighting than a Data Center or a Commercial facility. The domain that matters most to mission survival carries the highest weight. Weights are stated explicitly in every assessment.
Latency position, fibre ecosystem, power demand viability, water availability, plot geometry, market context, mission precedent. The primary mission-specific requirements evaluated against the site's inherent characteristics.
Seismic classification, flood risk, geotechnical formation, climate range, humidity, rainfall, sandstorm exposure, wildfire risk, air quality, environmental sensitivity. Natural hazards that determine intrinsic site viability independent of engineering.
Grid capacity and supply, substation proximity, electricity tariff, connectivity carriers, fibre-to-site status, water supply, fuel availability. For mission-critical infrastructure this is the highest-weighted domain — power is the irreducible requirement.
Proximity hazards, adjacency threats, civil unrest baseline, terrorism exposure, drone and air attack risk, EMI/EMP sources, geopolitical stability. VIGIL assesses inherited exposure — what the location brings to the mission before any protective design is applied.
Land use designation, planning framework, environmental approvals pathway, sector-specific regulation, data localisation requirements, construction approvals. The regulatory environment the mission must navigate — including emerging frameworks that create future compliance burden.
Climate change trajectory, infrastructure expansion plans, urbanisation and encroachment risk, strategic alignment evolution, expansion capacity. The question no standard assessment asks — where is the risk environment going, and will this site remain suitable when it arrives?
Note on domain weights: The percentages shown above are calibrated for a Critical infra facility mission. A logistics hub, sovereign facility, or hospitality asset carries different weights reflecting different mission-critical dependencies. Domain weights are stated explicitly in every VIGIL assessment and are not adjustable by the client.
Three numbers.
One complete picture.
Every VIGIL assessment produces three independent indices. They are not components of each other — they are separate analytical outputs that together give a board, an investment committee, or a project team a complete picture of the decision in front of them.
The primary output. Combines the three-layer model scores with domain weighting to produce a 0–100 index. The MSI answers the fundamental pre-commitment question. A site either meets the threshold for the intended mission, meets it conditionally, or does not meet it.
The evidence quality score. Reflects the availability, quality, recency, and corroboration of data behind the MSI. A high-MSI site with a low MCI is a site where the conclusion rests on thin evidence — and decisions should not be made with the same confidence as a high-MSI, high-MCI site. Most assessment firms hide this. VIGIL measures it.
The trajectory score. Projects the direction of the MSI over a 20-year operational horizon — accounting for climate change, infrastructure evolution, threat actor trajectory, regulatory development, and urbanisation trends. A site suitable today in a deteriorating environment is a different investment than one suitable today in a stable environment. The MRI makes this visible.
Every source rated.
No hidden uncertainty.
Every indicator in a VIGIL assessment carries a data confidence score alongside its suitability finding. This prevents false precision — an indicator scored from a government database carries different analytical weight than one derived from a news source or commercial estimate. The confidence framework is what makes the MCI possible.
A complete data source confidence register is included in every VIGIL assessment — listing every source used, its type, its confidence rating, and which indicators it informed. This register is the evidence trail that makes findings auditable and defensible when challenged by a board, insurer, or regulator.
Not every market
is equally observable.
See the examples below
Global assessments.
Transparent confidence.
VIGIL delivers site assessments across 88 countries through structured indicators, open-source intelligence, environmental datasets, and proprietary evaluation frameworks. Not every site is equally observable.
Every assessment includes a confidence score that reflects the availability, quality, recency, and corroboration of evidence used to evaluate a site."
The MSI scores a site's intrinsic capability to sustain its mission across six domains — from infrastructure readiness to lifecycle resilience. It answers the question: should this mission be located here?
MSI = f(Capability Fit, Constraint Burden, Mitigation Feasibility)
Scale: 0–100 · Ratings A through E
The MCI scores the strength of evidence behind the MSI. It reflects data availability, source quality, recency, and corroboration across all indicators used in the assessment. High MSI with low MCI signals that additional validation is required before capital is committed.
MCI = f(Source Quality, Data Recency, Corroboration Depth)
Scale: 0–100 · Reported alongside every MSI
Suitability and confidence are measured independently. A site may appear suitable — high MSI — while evidence confidence remains low, signalling the need for additional validation before capital is committed.
Most assessment firms deliver a single score. VIGIL delivers two — because a decision made on incomplete evidence is a different quality of decision, and boards deserve to know the difference.
Risk converted into
capital language.
The most differentiated output of a VIGIL assessment is the Constraint Economics model. Instead of saying "Risk = Medium," VIGIL quantifies what the site's constraints cost — converting a risk register into a capital planning tool that boards, investment committees, and project finance teams can act upon.
The board-level framing: "This is not a bad site. It is a site that carries [X] in avoidable capital premiums that a comparable unconstrained site would not require." That sentence changes the conversation from risk management to investment decision. Which is the correct conversation to be having before capital is committed.
Constraint Economics outputs are indicative pre-design cost ranges derived from comparable projects in the relevant market. Formal cost confirmation requires engineering design and contractor engagement. VIGIL provides the analytical framework; the client appoints the engineers.
Five ratings.
One recommendation.
Every VIGIL assessment produces a five-grade verdict calibrated against the Mission Suitability Index and constraint economics. The framework is designed to give boards and investment committees a clear, reasoned position — not a score to be debated, but a recommendation to be acted upon.
Rating C is not a failure. It is an honest finding — one that a comparable assessment delivered without VIGIL's framework would either miss entirely or present as a subjective caution. A Rating C with clearly documented conditions and a Constraint Economics output gives an investment committee exactly what it needs: the cost of proceeding, the risk of not resolving the conditions, and the confidence level behind both.
Every VIGIL assessment includes: MSI with domain breakdown · MCI confidence score · MRI trajectory · Condition register with responsible party and timeline · Constraint Economics · Design Requirement Derivations · Data Source Confidence Register · Assessor's Verdict with supporting rationale. Commission an assessment →