Shared, auditable evidence for climate-adjusted risk.
ForceShield is a proposed initiative for shared, auditable, asset-level resilience evidence that preserves owner agency and privacy — applied first in wildfire insurance, the California case study, and extending across energy, carbon, and transit.
The gap
Climate-adjusted underwriting is evolving faster than the evidence beneath it.
As forward-looking, climate-adjusted underwriting takes hold, what is missing is shared, auditable, property-level evidence of what mitigation was actually done and how it changed the risk.
Many existing workflows surface composite scores without a per-factor audit trail. A number arrives; the reasoning behind it does not.
And the property owner — the one who can actually change the risk — is often outside the data loop entirely.
The framework
Close the loop — and put the owner inside it.
Observations 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, not a static score. With the owner’s explicit consent, aggregated and privacy-protected observations feed back into standards work — the way building-science research informs codes.
Who it serves
One proposed framework, many stakeholders.
Regulators & standards peers
A credible evidence and governance reference as the market moves toward 2030/40/50 climate-resilience governance — a framework, stated principles, and an independent-governance roadmap to help shape.
Engage with the initiative
Insurers (as participants)
A proposed open, per-factor-cited evidence framework — intended to be vendor-neutral — that existing models and filings could be checked and improved against.
Follow / participate
Researchers & academia
A proposed venue for access — once the consent framework exists — to owner-consented, aggregated and privacy-protected empirical observations, and to feed findings back into standards the way building-science research informs codes.
Contribute / collaborate
Property owners
A say in the data loop and control over the data they contribute — with recognition for mitigation actually done. The owner, placed inside the evidence loop.
Learn how it works
Partners & foundations
A credible, public-interest effort — modeled on institutional infrastructure, building toward independent, vendor-neutral governance — worth backing or joining.
Partner with us
Insurers appear here as participants in a standard intended to be vendor-neutral — never as sales targets. The commercial conversation lives on riskscan.ai.
Principles
Four commitments.
Open, citable standards
Every factor traces to a published source anyone can read.
Owner-controlled disclosure
For the data the owner controls and contributes, the owner decides what is shared, with whom, and for what purpose — opt-in, withdrawable on bounded terms. Owner consent is necessary for owner-sourced data, but it is not sole authority: insurer-held and third-party-licensed records also require their controller’s approval — a per-source rights check.
Per-factor transparency
No opaque composite scores; each factor carries its own evidence.
Empirical feedback into standards
With the owner’s explicit consent, aggregated and privacy-protected observations flow back into what is proposed on paper. Consent plus aggregation are the basis — anonymization alone is not.
Evidence & standards approach
How the evidence layer works — and how it earns independence.
Per-factor citations to published authorities; reproducible, version-pinned methods; owner-controlled disclosure and privacy; and a proposed empirical-feedback path to standards bodies and regulators — in the spirit of how UL, IBHS, and NIST inform the codes others write. Contributing evidence, nothing more.
Data use & consent
Standards or research use of observations is consent-gated and limited to aggregated and privacy-protected data — designed not to re-identify. Anonymization by itself does not establish consent or authority. This is a stated design commitment for the proposed initiative, not a system that exists today.
A per-source rights check
Observations are not all owner-controlled. Before any secondary use, a per-source check is required: property-owner consent for owner-contributed data, the controller’s approval for insurer-held data, the third-party license terms for vendor-licensed data, and the rights of any affected data subjects. Owner consent alone cannot authorize research use of insurer- or vendor-controlled evidence.
Withdrawal (required before launch)
Before any standards or research use launches, the system must let an owner withdraw: stopping future secondary use and deleting the secondary-use copies and pointers under ForceShield’s control, with downstream recipients requested — and, where contractually applicable, required — to delete. Downstream deletion is requested or contractually required, never guaranteed. Already-aggregated or already-published outputs cannot be retracted. These are forthcoming requirements, not actions performed today.
Forgettability & the evidence ledger
Reconciling the right to be forgotten with an immutable, reproducible evidence ledger is an open architecture question we are working through — not a solved feature. We are studying cryptographic erasure (destroying a record’s decryption key so an entry becomes unreadable while the audit chain stays intact) and what the post-erasure contract should guarantee. We will not claim a “forget” capability until it is designed and proven.
Participate
If shared, auditable resilience evidence is a problem you care about, build it with us.
Regulators and standards peers, insurers, researchers, property owners, partners and foundations — there is a path for each of you. We are looking for thought-partners, not customers.
Where this stands
Transparency is part of the standard.
ForceShield is an initiative founded by Tac Leung through 00 Start LLC. The evidence standard described here is a proposal we are exploring with prospective stakeholders — it has not yet been formed. The auditable-evidence approach is being applied across peer domains: wildfire insurance is the first case study (FireBreak, via RiskScan.ai); energy and carbon is an in-market operating venture (SecuredCarbon); transit is planned (TransitSafe).
Independence is the goal, not yet the structure.
We are working to establish independent governance — a board with members beyond 00 Start, clear decision rights, a conflicts-of-interest policy separating the steward from the commercial implementer, and an open membership process. Until then, ForceShield is a proposed initiative intended to develop that independence.
- In formation
ForceShield — the evidence standard
The standard itself is a proposed initiative; independent governance is being developed (not yet established).
- Case study
Wildfire & insurance — FireBreak
The first proving ground: California wildfire insurance, where the evidence-and-governance argument is made first (the CDI / PRID context). Built via 00 Start LLC and RiskScan.ai.
- In market
Energy & carbon — SecuredCarbon
An in-market operating venture — renewable-energy siting, storage, and energy-tax evidence (Zone Opportunity Engine, BESS, cost segregation).
- Planned
Transit — TransitSafe
A planned application of the same auditable-evidence approach to transit assets.
The evidence standard and its independent governance are not yet established — we say so plainly. The peer domains carry their own honest maturity. ForceShield itself does not sell insurance products or underwriting services.
One standard, applied across peer domains