Case studies

Work you can check.

Two groups below: what we can show you, and what we do not publish.

last reviewed ·

client studies · none published

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, and we will not manufacture volume to fill this page.

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.

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

Client work is described here only with the client's written permission, and none is published. An anonymised paragraph you would have no way to check is not a substitute, so this space stays empty.

Start with a call about what you are trying to fix.

Book an assessment call

30 minutes · with the engineer who would scope the work

one-page recap within 2 business days of a call that progresses