Cyber · Safety & Assurance Case
Connect cyber controls to the services that depend on them.
Build an explicit argument. Connect the controls and original evidence. Record the people, limitations and decisions behind each reviewed issue.
Available for controlled evaluation. Specialist acceptance and hosting suitability must be established before operational use.
A traceable argument
Context → claims → evidence → independent review
An assurance case for a fictional service and its dependencies; not penetration testing or a promise of attack prevention.
Original sector framework · human decisionsCyber is a security and resilience assurance case. Safety consequences must be assessed explicitly where cyber and physical systems interact.
Built around your review questions
Cyber context, made explicit.
Essential functions, assets and dependencies
Define service boundaries, assets, owners, data sensitivity, external dependencies and safety consequences of disruption.
Threat model and assumptions
Record credible threat scenarios, assumptions and risk rationale without storing credentials or unnecessary exploitable details.
Control outcomes and applicable framework
Map claims to selected current NCSC CAF or NIST CSF outcomes, with applicability and evidence references. A mapping is not certification.
Supplier access and trust boundaries
Record ownership, authorisation, review and revocation evidence for third-party access and service dependencies.
Detection, response and exercise evidence
Reference authorised testing, monitoring coverage, response responsibilities and exercise findings.
Recovery objectives and tested restoration
Record business-approved recovery requirements and actual restoration test evidence, limitations and review dates.
Fictional demonstration · no live records changed
Northbank Digital – essential service resilience
A fictional essential-service operator reviews identity controls, supplier access and recovery evidence after a tabletop exercise. No real network addresses, credentials or exploit details are included.
The essential service has a justified resilience argument for its defined context
Link applicable evidence and document why it substantiates or challenges this claim.
Identity and privileged access controls are reviewed and evidenced
Link applicable evidence and document why it substantiates or challenges this claim.
Supplier and trust-boundary risks have accountable owners
Link applicable evidence and document why it substantiates or challenges this claim.
Detection and response arrangements are tested
Link applicable evidence and document why it substantiates or challenges this claim.
Recovery requirements are substantiated by restoration evidence
Link applicable evidence and document why it substantiates or challenges this claim.
Residual risks and review triggers are explicitly accepted by authorised people
Link applicable evidence and document why it substantiates or challenges this claim.
Explore the review scenarios
1. Establish the working baseline
Define boundaries, assign a case owner and record the relevant requirements and their current editions. The example begins in Draft; no claim is automatically supported.
2. A gap challenges the argument
The restoration exercise did not include a critical supplier dependency. Recovery claim lacks applicable evidence Record the challenge against the relevant claim. Retain the source evidence and determine who must review it.
3. A supporting record changes
Update a linked assessment or shared control, then refresh the case. The dependency version mismatch prompts review. A subsequent draft may acknowledge the new version; a previously issued snapshot remains unchanged.
4. Review and controlled issue
Resolve completeness gaps, substantiate claims and submit to the assigned reviewer. Every contributor to that revision is excluded from approving it. Separate regulatory, clinical or operational decisions remain outside this workflow.
Create an editable copy with “Create fictional Cyber draft” in the client workspace. Training prompts must be replaced with actual reviewed content before any real case is issued.
Connected to the Sentinel Suite
Use the work you already do.
Learn and challenge
Incident, Investigate and Investigate Pro provide findings that can challenge assumptions. Reference the applicable finding and assessment revision.
Control and verify
Use Bowtie and Assure records, register shared barriers and retain performance evidence. A changed barrier prompts reassessment of dependent cases.
Manage continuing assurance
Change, Compliance and Audit support controlled review. Authorised copies of Observe and Competence evidence can be attached; their original permissions remain separate.
Know what the edition does.
Is this certification or regulatory approval?
No. It manages arguments, evidence, version history and accountable review. It does not decide whether the technical argument is sufficient or whether operations may proceed.
What can I retain and export?
Original PDFs, Word documents, Apple Pages files and supported images can be uploaded to a case. Export Google Docs to Word or PDF first. Download original files separately, export JSON and generate printable case reports.
What information is suitable for this launch?
Use fictional or appropriately authorised evaluation information. This deployment has not been assessed for classified defence material, nuclear-sensitive information, patient-identifiable clinical records or sensitive cyber secrets. Sector labels do not establish hosting accreditation.
Can the edition be allocated separately?
Yes. An administrator allocates each edition to a company. An active company annual licence and manager role are required to write. Existing authorised managers retain read/export access after expiry.
Does the desktop include this edition?
No. These new case editions are cloud add-ons. Desktop case synchronisation and sector-specific desktop validation are separate work.
NCSC – Cyber Assessment Framework · Reference checked 23 October 2026. Determine applicable current requirements for each real project.