Case studies

Work you can check.

Two groups below: what we can already show you, and what we honestly can't yet.

last reviewed

client studiesnone published[PLACEHOLDER: one we may describe]

We would rather show you one engagement in full — the starting position, what we changed, what it cost, what did not go to plan — than six anonymised paragraphs about a "leading regional client" you have no way of verifying. That is why this page grows slowly: every client study here needs a real client's written permission before it is written, and we will not manufacture volume in the meantime.

What we can show you today is our own work. Below, "Our own systems" carries what we have actually done to ourselves — one finished, checkable study, and one real study still in progress, published as it stands rather than held back until it looks tidier. "Client engagements" is honestly empty, and stays that way until it is not.

Our own systems

Both entries in this group are our own work, not a client’s — there is nothing to anonymise because there is nothing to hide behind an anonymisation.

Why the tenant-hardening study has a before and no after

We captured the baseline — Secure Score 52.1 / 64 — before changing anything, and remediation is still running.

Internal Secure Score review

So that study publishes the number we started from, the method behind it, and a dated commitment to the next snapshot, with the after-number visibly marked as outstanding. We would rather ship a page that names its own gap than hold it back until it looks tidier — or fill the gap with a projection.

Client engagements

Every study in this group needs a real client's written permission before we can write it, and none has landed yet — so instead of an anonymised paragraph you would have no way to check, this space stays honestly empty until one does.

Start with the assessment, not the migration.

Book an assessment call

30 minuteswith the engineer who would scope the work[PLACEHOLDER: written-summary turnaround, not yet committed]