Security decisions backed by dollars, not dashboards.
Turn your control state into dollar-denominated risk you can actually decide on. Which investments are working. Which vendors are worth the exposure. Where the next security dollar buys the most reduction. Real FAIR quantification, real loss curves, mid-market native. The decision-support layer your CISO and CFO need to run the program, not the PDF factory your governance stakeholders happen to also get.
The obvious question
“How is this different from what my compliance platform already ships?”
You have two choices in this market today. Compliance software that dresses control rollups in a dollar sign, or CRQ built for enterprises with a quant team and a six-month services engagement budget. Gartner just named the wedge in the middle: operationalized CRQ. That is where we live.
- Strength
- Deep on control-health rollups the auditor already knows
- What’s missing
- The dollar figure is a compliance score in dollar clothing — no FAIR, no Monte Carlo, no loss curve the underwriter recognizes
- Strength
- Real quantification, math that survives a Big-4 audit
- What’s missing
- Six-month services engagement and a $500K+ price tag before your first quantified number; built for teams with an in-house quant
- Strength
- The same FAIR + Monte Carlo the pure-plays run, on the same platform your compliance evidence already lives
- Why it matters
- At mid-market price, operated by your CISO alone, and the number refreshes when your control state moves
A number your CFO can defend at renewal, in diligence, and on the earnings call.
The dollar figure you use to justify security spend has to survive scrutiny from the people who actually push on it: your CFO first, then your insurance underwriter at renewal, then investors on the quarterly, then acquirers if you are ever selling. Rules-of-thumb multipliers do not hold up. Ours runs canonical FAIR (Loss Event Frequency × Loss Magnitude) through a Monte Carlo simulation calibrated to real breach data. The math is defensible; the outputs are readable; the same engine powers our cyber diligence platform.
- Your CFO can trace any dollar figure back to the data behind it. Which reference class fired, which vintage of breach data anchored the range, which curve the engine used. When someone asks “where does the $1.2M come from,” the answer is one click deep.
- For the scenarios that would materially move the business, run at higher precision. Up to a million Monte Carlo iterations on tail-risk work when you need the worst case in high resolution before signing off on the mitigation spend.
- The Loss Exceedance Curve overlays your tolerance zone and your current insurance band. One look tells you whether your policy actually covers your P95 loss, or whether you’re paying premium on a gap you should be closing instead.
- If you use both sides of the platform (Executive Reporting for run-the-business risk, Cyber Diligence for M&A), the numbers agree with each other. One engine, one set of underlying assumptions, no awkward reconciliation when your CFO asks why the ExecRep number does not match the diligence report.
Example ransomware scenario. Real ranges, real breach-data anchors, cited on hover so your CFO can trace every number.
KRI signals propose the risks. You decide what goes in.
Most risk registers are spreadsheets someone updates before audit season. This one watches your live KRI signals and proposes new scenarios the moment they breach, with the draft dollar range already computed from reference-class data. Accept with calibration, decline with a rationale, or defer. Minutes on it, not weeks.
- When a real signal breaches (a critical vendor goes down, a KEV entry hits your stack, a new single point of failure appears), the platform proposes a scenario with the dollar range already drafted
- Accept with FAIR calibration sliders. The range updates live as you adjust based on your own context
- Decline with a rationale, or defer with re-propose conditions. Every decision is captured, so you never re-litigate the same scenario twice
- Annual re-attestation queue surfaces every scenario due for review, so nothing goes stale before an auditor asks about it
Know which risk categories to feed. Know which to starve.
Set your five ERM tolerances once (Operational, Financial, Compliance, Reputational, Strategic) and evaluate every category live against current exposure. When Compliance is running hot but Operational has room, you have the data to reallocate before the next planning cycle. This is not a report you review quarterly. It is a signal your budget conversations use.
- Set thresholds in language your leadership already uses: “Aggregate ALE under $500K,” “Resilience Score at least 72,” “Critical compliance gaps at most 3 in 90 days.” They mean what you said they mean
- Quarter-over-quarter trend on each category shows whether the program is improving or drifting. Feeds directly into how your next budget cycle gets allocated
- Compliance deficiencies link to the specific risk scenarios they amplify. Close the gap, watch the linked ALE come down. Not a coincidence, a causal chain your CFO and auditor can both follow
- Export the section as a stakeholder-ready packet whenever you need one: appetite table, top scenarios, decisions requested, formatted for the audience you are presenting to
- Work item closes"Deploy DLP on all endpoints" flips to COMPLETED
- Monte Carlo re-runs10,000 iterations, controlled curve regenerated
- ALE moves$412K → $337K (-18%). Residual curve tightens.
- Your posture updatesFinancial appetite verdict re-evaluates. Executive dashboard reflects the new picture. Your Friday board pack sees Thursday's reality.
The picture stays current between meetings, so you never have to defend yesterday’s number in today’s review.
The picture moves when you do. So do your decisions.
When you close a work item, the dollar impact re-runs immediately. When a vendor incident lands, the scenario reprices. So your Tuesday budget conversation is not defending last quarter’s number — it is grounded in what actually changed since. The NACD 2026 handbook calls out this failure mode plainly: security updates that are stale, inconsistent, and disconnected from business decisions. Ours are the opposite of that by construction.
- No analyst in the loop keeping the number current
- Every scenario ships with a plain-English rationale: worst case, best case, biggest gap, next investment
- The picture your CFO reviews today is today’s picture
Stop getting your budget discounted by 50% just because past predictions were vague.
Every CISO has heard some version of “we think you might be overstating this.” The reason it keeps coming is that most cyber predictions are unfalsifiable, so the reflex response from your CFO, your CEO, and your audit committee is to assume inflation and cut the ask in half. An actual forecast track record breaks that cycle. Predictions get resolution dates. They resolve against reality. Over time your accuracy becomes visible, and the discount goes away.
What you get on the other side is bigger than the one complaint stopping. Your CFO starts reinforcing the investments you actually want to make, because they can see which of your prior calls landed. Strategic planning gets easier because the base rates are honest. Budget conversations turn into evidence conversations.
- Every prediction has a resolution date. No vague “in the coming quarters”
- Accuracy is visible: whether your 70% confidence calls actually land 70% of the time, so your CFO can trust your ROI math on the next investment
- Reference-class library anchors every forecast to industry base rates, not a gut call
- For the calls you would not want to make alone, aggregate inputs from your CFO, your GC, and your security leaders into one group estimate that reflects the whole executive team’s read, not just yours
An honest track record beats a big claim. Once your CFO can see which of your prior calls actually landed, they stop discounting your next one.
The packet you actually hand your stakeholders. Not a project.
Three packet types for the three audiences you regularly present to: the Board Pack for the full quarterly, the Audit Summary for the audit committee, and the Security Strategy for the executive team and security leadership. Same underlying platform data, different section list per audience. Generated on demand in minutes, not drafted over weeks. So you spend the quarter running the program, not writing about it.
- Three formats every executive knows: PDF for the packet, DOCX for the redliner, and a revocable share link for the stakeholder who wants it on their phone
- Your logo on every page. Nothing in the packet gives away that you used a platform to produce it
- Generated on demand, in minutes. If the picture changes Tuesday, the Wednesday version reflects it
- Drag-reorder sections and toggle them on or off, so the packet reflects how your specific audience actually reads material. The version you hand the audit committee is not the same version you send to the executive team
Aggregate loss expectancy trended down 34% year over year
Our aggregate Annual Loss Expectancy across the top ten quantified scenarios closed Q3 at $412K, down from $620K in Q4 last year. The improvement is concentrated in two places: closing the SSO gap on contractor accounts (SOC 2 CC6.6) and finishing endpoint DLP rollout (PCI 3.4). Both work items linked to specific scenarios and their reductions are traceable on the risk register.
Approve reallocating $180K of the FY27 security budget from EDR expansion to third-party assessment coverage. Modeled reduction: $78K additional annual ALE reduction at higher marginal return than another year of EDR seat growth.
Common questions
The questions CISOs and CFOs ask before they buy this
Ready to run your program on math instead of intuition?
Get your first FAIR-quantified scenario into the register in minutes. Not months.