ForceShield

Climate-adjusted underwriting now has permission to use forward-looking factors. What is missing is shared, auditable, property-level evidence of what mitigation was actually done — and how it changed the risk.

Today’s tools produce composite scores without a per-factor audit trail. A number arrives; the reasoning behind it does not.

And the property owner — the one person who can actually change the risk — is missing from the data loop entirely.

Close the loop, and put the owner inside it:

Observations of a property feed an AI assessment; the assessment is explained to the owner, factor by factor; the owner mitigates; the property is re-observed; and the carrier sees evidence of the change rather than a static score.

Anonymized empirical observations from that loop can then feed back into standards work — the way building-science research informs codes. That is an analogy to how institutions like IBHS, UL, and NIST inform the codes others write; ForceShield proposes to contribute evidence in that spirit, nothing more.

• Open, citable standards. Every factor traces to a published source anyone can read.
• Owner-controlled disclosure. The property owner decides what is shared, and with whom.
• Per-factor transparency. No opaque composite scores; each factor carries its own evidence.
• Empirical feedback into standards. What is observed in the field flows back into what is proposed on paper.

If shared, auditable resilience evidence is a problem you also care about, write to us: hello@forceshield.org.