Design and development
- Guide secure, operable design
- Focus risk-based testing
- Support development stage-gate reviews
Use cases
Structured risk insight where decisions need a clearer basis
Aegis101 supports repeatable technology-risk conversations across live services, change, suppliers, governance, and remediation.
Aegis101 informs decisions without claiming audit, compliance, or production-readiness approval.
Live services
Architecture and change
Suppliers and SaaS
Remediation and follow-through
Governance and reassessment
Decision moments
Clearer technology risk. Better-informed decisions.
Questions tailored to your service. Findings linked to answers. Practical next steps.
Readiness and transition
- Inform go-live decisions
- Review operational readiness
- Support operational readiness and handover
Change and assurance
- Review changes and migrations
- Strengthen supplier reviews
- Prepare for framework reviews
Treatment and oversight
- Prioritise and plan remediation
- Track outstanding risks
- Reassess and compare compatible completed reports
- Support ongoing review and follow-through
Security
Understand the security position and focus treatment
Use contextual assessment to identify material control weaknesses, communicate residual risk, and direct accountable follow-up.
Security baseline and health review
Establish an answer-based view of control strengths, weaknesses, category drivers, and priority treatment across an existing system or service.
Architecture and material change
Assess how internet exposure, APIs, data, identity, cloud, development, and operations shape risk before or during significant change.
Supplier and SaaS screening
Structure due diligence around service context, security controls, assurance evidence, dependencies, and the residual decisions that remain with the buyer.
Operability
Examine whether a service can be owned, supported, and recovered
Operability assessment keeps service consequence distinct from security risk and makes operational responsibilities visible.
Service supportability review
Examine ownership, runbooks, monitoring, incident routes, access, capacity, maintenance, and operational dependencies.
Resilience and recovery
Review backup, recovery, continuity, failover, testing, and recovery objectives without treating those concepts as interchangeable.
Transition and handover
Inform service introduction by making open operational risks, evidence needs, ownership gaps, and follow-up actions explicit.
Governance and progress
Turn a developing answer basis into an owned improvement cycle
Autosave, resume, interim reporting, targeted completion, and Workspace history support practical governance before and after the first completed assessment.
Progressive and interim assessment
Bring together information across teams and working sessions, report on the confirmed basis, and keep unavailable answers visible for direct follow-up.
Remediation planning
Group work by risk priority, suggest accountable owner routes, and set evidence expectations for closure.
Executive and risk reporting
Give leaders a concise position, material drivers, decision boundary, and priority actions without exposing internal scoring mechanics.
History and role-based follow-through
Record owners and same-portfolio members can return to authorised assessments and reports, maintain notes, rerun eligible assessments, and compare compatible completed reports; dedicated trend tooling remains planned.
Who uses the output
Useful across the decision chain
The same assessment can support different jobs without pretending every reader needs the same level of detail.
- Security and GRC leaders need material risk, treatment, and assurance boundaries.
- Technology and service owners need direct actions, ownership, dependencies, and closure evidence.
- Architects and engineering teams need control-specific context and pragmatic remediation direction.
- Executives and risk committees need a concise, supportable decision narrative.
Important boundary
Decision support, not delegated accountability
Aegis101 can organise and interpret submitted answers. Risk owners remain responsible for scope, response accuracy, evidence, acceptance, and decisions. Formal assurance requires appropriate independent review.
Discuss the assessment context that matters to you
Register interest to explore how Security, Operability, framework-specific views, and reassessment could support your technology-risk workflow.