Systems &
Assurance
Security outcomes that are demonstrated, not merely intended. Traceable from risk scenario to verification evidence — embedded from the earliest design stages.
Three questions that predict assurance failure
- Can your assurance manager pick any security requirement and trace it back to the risk scenario that generated it?
If not, you have requirements without rationale — and no way to defend them at a design gate.
- Does every security requirement have a defined verification method?
Requirements that can't be tested can't be demonstrated as met. They become assumptions — and assumptions don't survive audits.
- At what project stage did someone first ask these questions?
If the answer is "design gate 3" — the rework has already started.
What structured assurance delivers
-
Traceable requirements hierarchy
On recent transport projects, we've issued individually tracked security requirements per engagement — each traced from its originating risk scenario, with named designer response columns and compliance status tracking. Every requirement has a source, every design response has a justification, and assurance teams can follow the thread end-to-end.
-
Verification and validation planning
V&V strategies that define how each security requirement will be demonstrated as met — inspection, analysis, test, and review methods appropriate to the requirement type and project stage.
-
SFAIRP arguments that hold under scrutiny
Structured safety cases and security arguments built on evidence, not assertions. We use formal methods — including attack tree analysis and quantified risk assessment — to demonstrate that security treatments are proportionate to the threat. These arguments are designed to withstand regulatory review, independent audit, and governance challenge.
-
Audit-ready governance at every gate
A coherent assurance position that holds through delivery — not a compliance exercise conducted at the last gate when it's too late to fix anything. We work across commissioning assurance, as-built compliance reviews, and independent verification for both client and contractor organisations.
How we work
Assurance is not an audit conducted at the end of a project. We embed assurance thinking from the earliest stages, ensuring security requirements are well-formed, testable, and traceable before they become expensive to change. We work within established systems engineering frameworks and integrate with project management, safety, and design teams.
For: Project directors, assurance managers, safety teams, and governance bodies who need confidence that security requirements are being met as design progresses.
See this in practice
Need assurance that your security requirements will survive audit?
We can establish the assurance framework or review what you already have in place.