The exact deliverable, rendered as it ships — built on a fictional demo tenant, Acme Capital, so we can publish every page in the open. Every number is labeled proven from config, or modeled and shown as such.
When CyberTwin recommends a stack, it runs that stack through the same rubric it used to grade your current setup — and shows you the number. The recommended Balanced stack scores 59/100; the Advanced upgrade scores 78/100. You decide whether the delta is worth it.
Balanced 59/100. Advanced 78/100. Both numbers are engine output, not marketing math — the rubric is published and you can run it against the same Acme fixture yourself.
When CyberTwin recommends a security stack, it runs that stack through the same rubric it used to score your current setup, and shows you the number. In this example the Balanced stack scores 59/100 — strong on identity and endpoint, weak on cross-vendor attack-path coverage. The Advanced stack scores 78 because it closes those gaps. Both numbers are engine output, not marketing claims — the rubric is published and you can run it yourself. You decide whether the upgrade is worth it.
Both scores are engine output, not marketing claims. The rubric is published at /methodology. The Acme Capital fixture powering this is the same one the live attack-path demo runs against — open the engine code, run it yourself, get these numbers.
New Architecture, Architecture Review, and Configuration Review each generate a different deliverable. Below is a sample of each for the fictional Acme Capital — real engine-output shape, with the architecture diagram (SVG / PNG export) and the rules sheet.
Annual figures are tool-cost ESTIMATES — sourced from vendor pages + Vendr benchmarks, never to the dollar.
Closes the critical gaps on a tight budget; minimal cross-vendor attack-path coverage.
Strong governance, identity, and endpoint; gaps remain on cross-vendor attack-path stitching.
Closes the attack-path gaps with cross-vendor stitching + multi-vendor config audit; for teams with real attack surface.
The architecture, ready to hand to an engineer or auditor.
Tools grouped by architecture layer; edges show the protection and data-flow relationships the engine maps. Red-bordered nodes are the crown-jewel data stores. Export as SVG or PNG to hand to an auditor.
Sequenced by severity — Now / Next / Later.
The default sample is a fictional fintech. If you're in healthtech, SaaS, e-commerce, or another sector, generate a personalized version showing the vendors, frameworks, and compliance scoring that match your environment.
Every report is built from the same uploaded data. Each preview below is a real, downloadable PDF — rendered from the seeded Acme Capital environment, not a comp.
Every audited control in SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS v4, and NCA ECC v2 mapped to specific evidence — config-review findings, intake answers, posture snapshots, uploaded documents. Effort-ranked gaps with remediation guidance.
Pre-filled questionnaires for the major cyber insurance carriers. Each answer carries a confidence tag (definite / inferred / human-required) and a premium-impact signal (helpful / neutral / loaded). Premium-loaded answers ranked first.
Posture trend (12-month sparkline), ALE year-over-year, top open and remediated critical findings, framework coverage across 6 frameworks, incidents avoided with dates and dollar values, roadmap roll-up.
Attack-path mapping across the security tools you actually run: Microsoft Entra, Okta, JumpCloud (identity) · FortiGate, Cisco ASA, Cisco Meraki, Cloudflare (network) · Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon (endpoint) · AWS IAM, Azure RBAC, GCP IAM (cloud) · Microsoft Defender for O365 (email) · Microsoft Sentinel (SIEM) · 15 products supported. BFS from each entry to each sensitive resource. Edges annotated with MITRE technique codes (26 distinct techniques). Paths matched against 11 threat-actor categories. Inferred topology nodes from uploaded network diagrams (PNG / JPG / draw.io).
Walks an incident through the MITRE kill-chain. Shows which open findings would have broken the chain at each phase. Counterfactual loss avoided. Used post-incident or for tabletop preparation.
Compare prod vs staging, region A vs B. Diffs findings, severity counts, framework coverage, intake answers, ALE. The report that catches drift before audit.
Setup guide for the products in your chosen stack — only those, in deployment order. Architecture diagram annotated with deployment-order numbers and integration arrows color-coded by fit class. Per-product setup sections with template variables substituted to your environment (org name, primary IdP, primary cloud, network seed subnet). Inline integration handoffs between consecutive products. Per-step compliance annotation pinning each setup step to specific framework controls (SOC 2 CC6.1, ISO 27001 A.5.17, NCA ECC 2-2-3, etc.). Coverage scorecard at the end shows X of Y framework controls satisfied. Honest empty-state cards for products without authored playbooks (vendor-doc + Configuration Review check pointers).
Not a boardroom report — this is the working document your engineers execute. Every plan includes it.
Engine output for the same fictional Acme Capital — exportable as SVG or PNG.
Tools grouped by architecture layer; edges show the protection and data-flow relationships the engine maps. Red-bordered nodes are the crown-jewel data stores. Export as SVG or PNG to hand to an auditor.
Sample reports are static fictional data. Your assessment uses your real intake, your real configurations, your real frameworks — signup to first PDF in a single session.